Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITIBANK INTERNATIONAL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

UNIBANK BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time on Monday 1 November.

EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 11 November.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 4) BILL

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the British Railways (No. 4) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;

Ordered,
That, on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session, the Bill shall be presented to the House;

Ordered,
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;

Ordered,
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);

Ordered,
That since no Petitions remain against the Bill no Petitioners shall be heard before any committee on the Bill save those who complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled up Bill or of any matter which arises during the progress of the Bill before the Committee;

Ordered,
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;

Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

To be communicated to the Lords and their concurrence desired thereto.

BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL [Lords]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Promoters of the British Waterways Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the

close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in die Journal of the House as having been so read and committed);
That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members:: Object.

CROYDON TRAMLINK BILL [Lords]

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the Croydon Tramlink Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;

Ordered,
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;

Ordered,
That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);

Ordered,
That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;

Ordered,
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;

Ordered,
That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;

Ordered,
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;

Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

LETCHWORTH GARDEN CITY HERITAGE FOUNDATION BILL

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;

Ordered,
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;

Ordered,
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;

Ordered,
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);

Ordered,
That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;

Ordered,
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;

Ordered,
That in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against the Bill)" were omitted;

Ordered,
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;

Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

To be communicated to the Lords and their concurrence desired thereto.

LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [Lords]

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the London Local Authorities Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;

Ordered,
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;

Ordered,
That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);

Ordered,
That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;

Ordered,
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;

Ordered,
That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted:

Ordered,
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;

Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

LONDON UNDERGROUND (GREEN PARK) BILL

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the London Underground (Green Park) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;

Ordered,
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;

Ordered,
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;

Ordered,
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);

Ordered,
That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in Session 1991–92 or the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;

Ordered,
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within Session 1991–92 or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;

Ordered,
That in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;

Ordered,
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;

Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

To be communicated to the Lords and their concurrence desired thereto.

PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (SUSPENSION)

Ordered,
That so much of the Lords Message [26th October] as relates to the Humber Bridge Bill [Lords], the London Docklands Development Corporation Bill [Lords], the London Local Authorities (No. 2) Bill [Lords], the Malvern Hills Bill [Lords] and the River Calder (Welbeck Site) Bill [Lords] be now considered.

Resolved,
That this House doth concur with the Lords in their Resolution.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

GREATER NOTTINGHAM LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT BILL

DUNHAM BRIDGE (AMENDMENT) BILL

KING'S CROSS RAILWAYS BILL

Ordered,
That, in consideration of the Lords Message [26th October], the Promoters of the Greater Nottingham Light Rapid Transit Bill, the Dunham Bridge (Amendment) Bill and the King's Cross Railways Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bills in the next Session of Parliament provided that in the case of each Bill the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;

Ordered,
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bills shall be presented to the House;

Ordered,
That there shall be deposited with each Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;

Ordered,
That each Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first, second and third time and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read;

Ordered,
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;

Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Forestry

Mr. Marland: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when she last met the chairman of the Forestry Commission to discuss the forestry policy review; and if she will make a statement.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): I plan to meet the Forestry Commission chairman next month. I met the commission's director general last week, when we discussed a range of issues.

Mr. Marland: I know that my right hon. Friend is aware that great concern is being expressed in many quarters about the possibility of access being denied to woodland sold off by the Forestry Commission. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to pass on those concerns to the chairman of the forestry review group? Will she ensure that if any recommendations are made by the group, there will be adequate opportunities for interested parties to discuss and comment on them before any changes are made?

Mrs. Shephard: Woodlands managed by the Forestry Commission provide very important opportunities for nature conservation, access to the countryside and a wide range of other recreational and environmental benefits. The review group will have to take full account of the need to safeguard those public benefits. I know that my hon. Friend lives close to the Forest of Dean—indeed, it is in his constituency—and I live very close to Thetford forest. I have been left in no doubt whatever of the degree of public anxiety about access. I will certainly pass on my hon. Friend's concern, as I have been doing, to the review group. There is nothing to consult about at present because the review group has not yet made any proposals. Nevertheless, sufficient time will need to be allowed for consultation about whatever proposals the review group puts forward.

Mr. Tipping: Will the Secretary of State remind the Forestry Commission chairman that people have had the right to roam in Sherwood forest for many years and that Robin Hood will turn in his grave if that right is forbidden? Will she ask the chairman of the Forestry Commission to ask his review group to stick to its previous timetable? The changes to the timetable are causing concern and I do not want to see Robin coming into the Chamber to tackle the Secretary of State.

Mrs. Shephard: I shall certainly pass on to the Forestry Commission chairman the hon. Gentleman's message about Robin Hood and his more serious message about the need for a clear timetable so that, at the end, there is time for full consultation on whatever proposals might be made.

Mr. Mark Robinson: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the tenfold increase in broad-leaf planting that has taken place?

Mrs. Shephard: Yes. That is a considerable achievement by the Forestry Commission and as a result of Government policy. We need to get the balance right


between broad-leaf planting and softwood, given that softwood makes up the bulk of our timber consumption. That will be another concern to be considered by the forestry review group.

Dr. Strang: How can we believe what Ministers say on this issue? First, the Prime Minister gave an election pledge that the Forestry Commission would not be privatised, but then that was repudiated on the ground that that commitment was given during the
frenzied activity of the campaign".
Next, the review group was set up. We then discovered that some forests have been offered privately to national conservation groups. Now we are told that that review group has appointed a merchant bank and a land agent to advise it. Does the Minister not appreciate that millions of people derive great enjoyment from the freedom to roam in our state forests and that that freedom would be lost were they to be privatised? Will she stand up and fight for the people on this issue?

Mrs. Shephard: I have already made my feelings plain on the question of access. I can certainly reassure the hon. Gentleman, who I know has a keen interest in this matter. Perhaps I should remind him that forestry is a multi-million pound industry which brings many economic and environmental benefits to this country. The review is intended to ensure that we get the best value from the Government's investment and that we are to provide the right climate for private-sector investment. The consultants will help the review group in that work. I should repeat to the hon. Gentleman that there is no pre-determined outcome of that review and one option could be to do nothing.

GATT

Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in the discussions on agricultural trade in the current GATT round.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The Government are making every effort worldwide to maintain the momentum of the GATT negotiations so that a conclusion to the Uruguay round can be reached by 15 December.

Mr. Whittingdale: Does my right hon. Friend agree that thousands of jobs depend upon the successful outcome of the GATT talks and that trade in agriculture is central to that success? Will she remind our Community partners of that fact and, in particular, remind the French when she next has the opportunity to do so?

Mrs. Shephard: I reassure my hon. Friend that, on several occasions, I have already reminded my European Community counterparts, and in particular my French counterpart, that far more depends on the successful outcome of the GATT negotiations than agriculture, France or, indeed, the EC. It is a question of the liberalisation of world trade. The successful conclusion of the round would boost that trade by $213 billion. The EC is the world's largest exporter and everybody stands to gain. It is essential that there is a successful conclusion to the GATT round by the end of December.

Mr. Skinner: What a load of claptrap. Almost every day that passes one hears Government Ministers talk about GATT and the level playing field. When that is discussed

by the people who represent the farmers, what does it really mean? It means that Britain, with its climatic conditions, is going to compete with Mediterranean countries and California, which can grow——

Madam Speaker: Order. I heard only a quarter of a question. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has a proper question to put to the Minister.

Mr. Skinner: When will they realise that if they want to ensure a balance of payments surplus in Britain we cannot have a level playing field for agricultural produce from here? Intervention will always be the name of the game. All those Tory Members who represent the shire counties will back the farmers to the hilt. It has all been a load of baloney from beginning to end.

Mrs. Shephard: Perhaps I could thank the hon. Gentleman for his illuminating and meaningful contribution to this afternoon's affairs. The question is about GATT and if he had taken a moment to study either the question of my hon. Friend or, indeed, my answer he would have known that British agriculture stands to gain everything from a successful conclusion to the GATT round and the liberalisation of world trade. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does better next time.

Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning)

Sir Fergus Montgomery: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what resources have been allocated for the decommissioning of surplus United Kingdom fishing vessels.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jack): A total of £25 million has been allocated for decommissioning, of which £8.4 million is to be made available in 1993–94 under the Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning) Scheme 1993.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: What measures will my hon. Friend take to ensure that the boats that have been allocated for decommissioning are taken out of service?

Mr. Jack: I thank my hon. Friend for his interest in the matter. The funding for the measure will be of interest to his constituents. The order on decommissioning that we took through the House laid down in meticulous detail the arrangements for disabling a fishing boat so that it could no longer fish. People have to produce a certificate to that end before they can be paid. That should give the guarantee that my hon. Friend seeks: that boats will be stopped from fishing by decommissioning.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: It is disappointing to learn that the sum allocated for decommissioning this year is a pathetic £8.4 million. That is nothing compared with the scale of the problem. It will mean that more fishing effort will have to be taken out by days-at-sea limitations and a disproportionate sacrifice will be made by the fishermen. Why does not the Minister recognise that we are in this situation because his predecessors did not achieve the multiannual guidance targets from 1987 to 1991? It is the Department's fault and the only fair action would be for him to suspend the operation of the Sea Fish Conservation Act 1967 while proper conservation measures are imposed in agreement with the industry and to expand the decommissioning scheme.

Mr. Jack: I was almost distracted by the hon. Member's neck wear from composing a suitable reply. He seems to have reclaimed the Union flag for his own purposes. There were faults in the previous decommissioning scheme because we were removing fishing capacity at the same time as paying for new capacity and therefore increasing fishing effort. My hon. Friends who did the job before me should be congratulated on their persuasive powers over the Treasury to get a £25 million decommissioning scheme off the ground as part of a package of measures that we are putting forward to try to reduce fishing effort. I would have hoped for the hon. Gentleman's support because the end-point of the exercise is to help conserve fish stocks for the long-term good of the industry.

Mr. Harris: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) on speaking so well on behalf of his fisherman. But may I put it to the Minister that, although welcome, the £25 million for decommissioning goes nowhere near to solving the real problem of bringing effort under control? Will the Minister look with great seriousness at the constructive and extensive proposals put to him by the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, because some Conservative Members, including myself, think that its proposals are a much better way to conserve fish than the wretched tie-up scheme that the Government have unfortunately put to the House.

Mr. Jack: I thank my hon. Friend for his continued lobbying on that point. He does much credit to himself and to his constituents for assiduously voicing the concerns of the fishing industry. He will know that during September I conducted detailed discussions with fishermen around our shores, including many of his constituents. He will also know that I have attached importance to what they said about conservation, but he will be aware that our proposals to reduce fishing effort are not solely dependent on decommissioning. The capacity reduction through licence aggregation and through further measures to reduce effort play their part. I assure my hon. Friend that we will look, and are looking, carefully at the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations' proposals. I wish that I could be more specific in my response, but that organisation has thrown a spanner in the works and prevented us from announcing our views quickly because of its court case.

Mr. John D. Taylor: The Minister will know from his recent visit to Portavogie in Strangford that some 16 vessels in our 100-strong fleet are to be decommissioned. How does one decommission a fishing vessel?

Mr. Jack: I was aware from my visit, which was very successful and useful, of some of the difficulties that Northern Ireland's fishermen anticipated with decommissioning. Those of us who have seen in the national press some sad photographs of the disposal of timber boats will realise that the decommissioning process has begun. I understand the impact on some of the fishermen and have talked to some of them, but, as far as I am aware, the practical problems of decommissioning boats in the ports of Northern Ireland appear to have been resolved.

Mr. Ward: I thank my hon. Friend for listening to the fishermen—especially those from Poole—during the long recess. He will, therefore, be aware of the chaos caused by uncertainty, so will he come to a conclusion as quickly as

he can? Above all, will he assure the fishermen on the south coast that our continental partners are just as rigorous in enforcing the regulations as his inspectors?

Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend has put his finger on a very important point. I recently visited Commissioner Paleokrassas to put exactly that point to him. I said that if enforcement is not perceived to be effective by all fishermen throughout the Community, there will be no credibility for the common fisheries policy. He appreciated that and I think that he is going to make some useful proposals to ensure that when the new control regulation comes into force on 1 January, enforcement can be seen to be effective throughout the Community.

Mr. Tyler: Is the Minister aware that among fishermen in the south-west in particular, he and his colleagues on the Treasury Bench are now referred to as the little, little arid large show, for the obvious reason that the Minister is continually recycling the script of his predecessors? When will he and his colleagues listen to the industry, to the people in the south-west and to the Select Committee on Agriculture and, in particular, to what they have to say about the size of the decommissioning budget, the tie-up provisions and days at sea? When will he listen to his own district inspector from whom I have received a copy of the following recommendation—[interruption.] I am not permitted to read it, but it states that the only thing to be done with the days-at-sea provisions is to abandon them. When will the Minister listen to his own officials?

Mr. Jack: That is an illustration of why the Liberal party should be decommissioned—it is utterly bankrupt and bereft of individual thought about fishing policy. The best that it can do is get its hands on stolen goods, a personal communication from a fishing inspector to officials in my Department. If that is the sum total of Liberal fisheries policy, let it be broadcast throughout the south-west.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government are on target to achieve a 5 to 6 per cent. reduction in fleet capacity? Will the rules of the scheme be changed to target specific sectors where conservation is essential?

Mr. Jack: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Certainly, the results from the first tranche of decommissioning have been very encouraging. The spread of boats was good throughout the major fishing areas, in particular the demersal, beam and pelagic vessels. We have said, however, that we shall learn the lessons from the first decommissioning exercise to ascertain whether the eligibility rules have to be adjusted to meet exactly the point at the centre of my hon. Friend's question.

Mr. McGrady: First, may I thank the Minister for visiting South Down where he had what I hope was a fruitful dialogue with the fishermen there. However, after the consultation period, he must realise that the fishing industry as a whole has rejected the days-at-sea scheme because it is wholly impractical and uneconomic for fishermen to contend with and certainly it does not deal with the depletion of fishing stocks. Will he therefore take on board the suggestions made and introduce a new licensing scheme, enhance the decommissioning scheme and introduce new tactical conservation measures?

Mr. Jack: I hope that the fishing industry will look positively on the announcement that we are to make as a result of the consultations. I have taken the matter seriously. I bothered to go round to major fishing centres, including the one that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. We have Community obligations in terms of effort reduction, which we must meet. We have introduced a programme. We have said that we will try to modify the days-at-sea programme under the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1992. I promise that we are looking carefully at the proposals that have been made by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations.

Mr. Morley: Will the Minister confirm that his Department has taken out an injunction to prevent the publication of a letter from one of his inspectors in the south-west, Mr. C. R. George, who wrote that his staff felt that deep down there is a feeling that the legislation is so ill-conceived and so unpopular that it will not be workable? It went on to say that he felt——

Madam Speaker: Order. I have just cautioned one hon. Member. Quoting is not allowed at Question Time.

Mr. Morley: I was not quoting directly, but I will certainly follow your guidance, Madam Speaker.
The conclusion of the inspector was that, in its present form, the days-at-sea legislation should be abandoned. Is not it the case that the Minister has received detailed and excellent proposals for alternative schemes and ways of managing our fish stocks from the fishing organisations? Will he give those proposals careful consideration, act on them and abandon the legislation, which his staff feel is unworkable?

Mr. Jack: I am really disappointed that the hon. Gentleman, whom I have always regarded as an honourable Member of the House, should be fingering that stolen document. It was an internal document from a member of our fishing inspectorate. I was aware of that. So seriously did I take those remarks that I invited the inspector together with the other inspectors to a meeting. I listened carefully to what they had to say. The point at issue is that the particular document concerned was written months ago, before we had started the exercise of consultation with the industry. The inspector had a view; we have taken it into account. The hon. Gentleman will have to wait to see the results.

Apple Day

Mr. Dickens: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what support she is giving to Apple Day.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nicholas Soames): My ministerial colleagues and I have been pleased to participate in a number of recent events to promote the launch of the 1993 English apple season.

Mr. Dickens: Will my hon. Friend concede that there are many inefficient growers of tasteless apples in Europe, which swamp the market and cause surpluses, taking a lot of subsidies as a result? Does he agree that the money could be better used to promote the great English apple —I am thinking of the Blenheim Orange, Egremont Russet, Ashmead Colonel, Worcester Pearman, Chivers

Delight, not to mention the Cox's Orange Pippin and a new apple called Kingdom. Is not that why the English apple pie is the envy of the world?

Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend should know. He is perfectly right. The traditional English apples have never been more popular in this country. It is right that consumers in Britain should be reminded now and again of the outstanding quality of English apples against less-flavoured foreign imports. It would be quite wrong for us to consider banning foreign imports, however. It is for consumers to decide what they want to eat. There is no doubt that, if they were to test the British apple against any foreign apple, the British apple would always win hands down.

Mr. Enright: First, may I congratulate the Minister on his forthcoming connubial bliss? Secondly, now that we have had a successful Apple Day, will he throw his weight behind a special day for Yorkshire rhubarb?

Mr. Soames: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. We would be happy to do anything that we can to assist Yorkshire rhubarb.

Mr. David Nicholson: I also support the congratulations that have been given to my hon. Friend. Will he in turn congratulate the catering authorities of the House, which celebrated Apple Day by producing a rather imaginative menu using apples in all the restaurants of the House? Will he also have regard to the cider industry of Britain, which contributes significantly to the positive side of the balance of payments, and give it a degree of fiscal stability so that it can use British apples rather than foreign apples in its production?

Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I agree that the House catering authorities did a marvellous job on Apple Day. The House will be interested to know that, also on Apple Day, my right hon. Friend the Minister was presented with a traditional apple pie made with apples from the original Bramley tree, 180 years old on that day.
My hon. Friend asked about cider and fiscal stability. That is entirely a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, who I am sure will have heard my hon. Friend's remarks.

Common Agricultural Policy

Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what will be the cost of the common agricultural policy to the United Kingdom in 1994.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The United Kingdom contributes to the EC budget as a whole, not to parts of it. Expenditure on CAP in the United Kingdom in 1993–94 is estimated to be £2.5 billion.

Mr. Mackinlay: Does the Minister recall her speech to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds on 10 August, in which she announced a number of new environmental measures as part of the CAP reform package—in particular, the expansion of environmentally sensitive areas? Will she undertake that there will be no delay in implementing those measures, and no cuts in projected expenditure on the promotion of such measures following this year's Budget?

Mrs. Shephard: I do, indeed, recall my speech to the RSPB on that very pleasant occasion. I also recall that I spoke of the excellent contribution that ESAs make to environmental protection and sensible and profitable farming—the whole being tailored to the needs of local areas. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that all aspects of all spending in all Departments are being closely examined at the moment by the Departments in conjunction with the Treasury. I can say no more than that at this stage.

Sir Ralph Howell: Does my right hon. Friend regard the fact that the harvest fell from 22 million tonnes to 19 million tones—11 per cent.—in 1993 as success or as failure? Bearing in mind the heavy imports of foodstuffs into this country, what will be the implications for the balance of payments?

Mrs. Shephard: Part of the aim of the CAP reform package is to limit production by using set-aside to reduce expenditure on costly intervention and storage, which I know that my hon. Friend abhors. I consider an 11 per cent. reduction in production this year as a success for set-aside.

Mr. Strang: May I put it to the Minister that the Opposition regard it as quite indefensible that next year we shall be spending about £2 billion on intervention buying, adding to the food mountains? Does the right hon. Lady agree that expenditure on intervention buying should be cut and that some of the money should be used to encourage farmers to farm in a more environmentally sensitive way? Is she aware that any public expenditure review cut in the increased £30 million allocation that she announced under the agri-environment regulations will be bitterly resented by everyone who has the future of the countryside at heart?

Mrs. Shephard: I think that the hon. Gentleman and I agree that the cost of the CAP remains too high. I should have thought that he would also agree that the CAP reform package cuts prices and therefore brings the industry closer to the market, that it reduces intervention and that it places increased emphasis on benefits to the environment—all effects which I should have thought he would welcome.

Exports

Mr. Brazier: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action her Department is taking to assist the export of British agricultural produce.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I am taking forward in a number of ways the marketing initiative of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Mr. Brazier: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating our farmers and growers—a truly successful industry—on halving the trade gap in food over the past 30 years? Does she agree that the seminars that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has set up are playing an important role in continuing that process? Does she further agree that it is essential that we provide our farmers and growers with a level playing field in as many respects as possible, from research and development through to pesticides?

Mrs. Shephard: I agree with my hon. Friend that a level playing field is important for farmers, as it is for all our manufacturers. It is is important to reduce the trade

gap, and the marketing work of Food from Britain, which has been recently reconstituted to focus on export work, will make an important contribution in that respect.

Whaling

Dr. Godman: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when she last met her Norwegian counterpart to discuss the subject of whaling in the north Atlantic; and if she will make a statement.

Mr. Jack: I am sure that my right hon. Friend's counterpart, Mr. Olsen, is left in no doubt about the strength of feeling of the Government, the House and the public about Norway's decision to resume commercial whaling.

Dr. Godman: The Minister will know that Norwegian whaling ships have slaughtered more than 220 minke whales already this year. What action will the European Community take if the Norwegians decide to resume whaling next year? Does the Minister agree that Norway's membership of the EC is incompatible with whaling, so that if Norway becomes a member of the EC it will have to give up its whaling industry?

Mr. Jack: The hon. Member will know that the EC's present position effectively makes commercial whaling incompatible with Community regulations, and there has been no change in that. Certainly, there has been no change in the Government's position on whaling and on the International Whaling Commission.
As for Norway's accession to the EC, I would draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Minister on 10 June, when she pointed out that anybody contemplating joining a particular club should be fully aware of the implications of membership.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the decision by Norway to restart commercial whaling is having a serious impact on the Scottish salmon farming industry? My hon. Friend will know that the industry is facing a serious crisis because of overproduction and the dumping of salmon by Norwegians.
Is my hon. Friend aware that, to circumvent bans by European consumers of Norwegian products because of whaling, hundreds of tonnes of unlabelled Norwegian salmon have been shipped to Europe and then relabelled as Scottish salmon, thus squeezing Scottish salmon out of the European market? We know that English apples are the best, and we also know that Scottish salmon is the best. Will my hon. Friend do his best to stop the relabelling?

Mr. Jack: Norwegian whaling is a serious issue, and the action of the Norwegian salmon industry is an issue of equal seriousness. I am aware of the considerable concerns that have been expressed by the Scottish industry and by the Irish industry over the impact of the considerable increase in production from the Norwegian farm salmon sector.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), and I have raised the matter with Commissioner Paleokrassas, who has visited Norway to make a personal assessment of the situation. He is considering the matter and what action


can be taken. If my hon. Friend provides concrete evidence of relabelling, I will give him the best advice as to what he should do.

Mr. Tony Banks: The Government have made perfectly clear to the Norwegians their opposition to Norway's limited whaling, but what further action do the Government propose to take against the Norwegians to drive home the fact that whaling is totally unacceptable to the thinking of this country?
The arrogance of Mrs. Brundtland is breathtaking. She parades her credentials as a "green" person around the world, while her country flouts an international whaling agreement. What further action do the Government propose to take to put pressure on the Norwegians?

Mr. Jack: The most important action that we can take is to continue our stance of supporting the International Whaling Commission. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, on 26 April this year, he received an unambiguous letter from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that spelled out the Government's position on the matter. That position has not changed.
I know that individuals are taking action to demonstrate their strong feelings about Norway, while others have taken different action. The Government's position remains as was stated in my right hon. Friend's letter to the hon. Gentleman.

Beer

Sir Anthony Durant: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether she will be attending the great British beer festival in 1994 to discuss the promotion of British beer.

Mr. Soames: My right hon. Friend and I are always keen to promote the interests of our drinks industry.

Sir Anthony Durant: I am pleased to hear my hon. Friend's comment. Is he aware that the British brewing industry can compete adequately in the home market, but it is being damaged by the difference between the duty rates here and in France? Some 12 per cent. of take-home beer now comes across the channel into Britain. Will my hon. Friend have a look at that, bearing in mind that some of the southern breweries are having difficulties? My brewery, Courage, has just laid off 250 men. Will my hon. Friend talk to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the matter?

Mr. Soames: I am very sorry to hear about the position at Courage, which affects my hon. Friend's constituents. Certainly, we are aware of the serious anxiety in the industry about duty-paid allowances. I will ensure that my hon. Friend's points are raised with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.

Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister examine the reverse side of the promotion of British beer—the enormous damage which is done by alcohol abuse? Alcohol abuse costs the nation dear in expenditure by the national health service and in other ways. Will the Minister ensure that he remains completely at arm's length from the brewing industry? Will he examine the possibility of promoting a ban on the advertising of alcohol products? Only by doing that will he ensure that the Government's reputation of keeping

themselves at arm's length from the brewers is retained, especially in view of the massive donations that the brewing industry makes to the Tory party.

Mr. Soames: I am pleased to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that I am completely at arm's length from the brewing industry because I do not drink beer. "The Health of the Nation", a document which has been broadly welcomed in the House, contains references to the points that the hon. Gentleman made. Although we would not consider some of the more extreme suggestions that he made, I will certainly make sure that his views are represented to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health at a meeting that I am to have later today.

Mr. John Marshall: May I first congratulate my hon. Friend? Does he accept that it would be wrong to ban the advertising of products, the consumption and production of which are legal? Does the suggestion not show that the Labour party is full of misery guts?

Mr. Soames: I am not sure that I wholly agree with my hon. Friend, but his central point is correct. It would be improper to do such a thing.

Animal Welfare

Mr. Livingstone: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans she has to improve the welfare of animals transported from the United Kingdom to the rest of the EC.

Mr. Soames: We have maintained strict national rules to safeguard the welfare of animals during transport both within this country and for export. Further detailed Community rules are currently being discussed, and we are pressing for our high standards to be adopted elsewhere.

Mr. Livingstone: Does the Minister agree that, although three years ago we in Britain banned the barbaric procedure of putting calves in veal crates, more than 20,000 calves were exported to Europe last year, of which about 40 per cent. in weight came back after being put through the veal crate process? Does he believe that British consumers should have a choice? Will he agree to consider the Labour party's proposal that all veal in Britain should be labelled to allow consumers to avoid buying that which has been created in such barbaric conditions?

Mr. Soames: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we banned the use of close confinement veal crates in 1990. Although the directive that followed imposed small welfare improvements on other member states, it did not abolish the veal crate as we would have wished. Therefore, we voted against the directive. The directive will be reviewed and we shall continue to fight for welfare improvements. Our ban on veal crates will not be lifted. I will consider carefully the points that the hon. Gentleman has made.

Sir Jim Spicer: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a strong case in terms of welfare for giving every encouragement that we can to the export of lamb in carcase form rather than on the hoof? Is not that case reinforced by the fact that when lambs go over to France and are slaughtered there, they are marketed as French, not British lamb?

Mr. Soames: Plainly, my hon. Friend is correct. But, of course, a substantial premium is paid for the excellent


products that farmers in Britain produce. The central point, on which my hon. Friend is right, is that whatever happens, none of the welfare arrangements is worth the paper it is written on unless the Commission enforces the arrangements on the continent. That is the central task of Her Majesty's Government.

Common Agricultural Policy

Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what will be the cost of the common agricultural policy to EC member states in 1994.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The draft EC budget for 1994 provides for expenditure on the CAP of £28.4 billion.

Mr. Gunnell: The Minister knows that the Agriculture Commissioner has already stated that it will be extremely difficult to live within the legal limits of the budget in 1994 and he expects to use creative accounting to be within that limit. Does not the Minister agree that the cost of the CAP is spiralling and has gone through the roof? What practical measures is the Minister taking to ensure that the CAP is brought under control and that the British contribution does not go through the roof as well?

Mrs. Shephard: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that the cost of the CAP is far too high. It is always good to welcome a convert to the cause of sensible public spending. It is perhaps a little late, but late converts are none the less very welcome. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the guideline for the EC budget, and for the agriculture part of that reached at Edinburgh, will not be exceeded. It cannot be exceeded and the United Kingdom will not agree to its being exceeded.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Shersby: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 October.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Shersby: As a result of my right hon. Friend's discussions today, does he agree that the fight against crime calls for a partnership between the Government, the police and the people? Will my right hon. Friend's Administration do all in their power to raise the morale of the police so that the police can do more effectively the difficult job of protecting the lives and property of every citizen of our country?

The Prime Minister: I believe that my hon. Friend is quite right to talk about the importance of police morale and the need to form a partnership between the police, the Government and the public in tackling crime. Nothing does police morale or public morale more harm than to see criminals uncaught or unpunished. I give my hon. Friend a complete assurance that crime will remain at the centre of our concerns in the months and years ahead.

Mr. John Smith: Can the Prime Minister tell us whether it is really the case that, after accepting an

amendment that British Rail should be allowed to bid for rail franchises, the Government now intend to table further amendments which will remove that right if there are any other bids? How can the right hon. Gentleman justify such a blatant and discreditable manoeuvre?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will have to wait and have a look at the amendments which my right hon. Friend will table this afternoon. The right hon. and learned Gentleman would be wise to wait and see.

Mr. Smith: Will the Prime Minister deal with the clear point of principle? If British Rail put in a bid for a franchise and that was clearly the best offer, why should that be knocked out in favour of a worse offer from a competitor? What is the justification for that in terms of the taxpayer or traveller?

The Prime Minister: I advised the right hon. and learned Gentleman to wait, and he might have been rather wiser to have done so. The Government accept that there might be circumstances in which it might be appropriate for British Rail to be a franchisee. However, we remain of the view that it would not be right to treat British Rail in the same way as other potential franchisees and that measures for this provision should be made in relation to British Rail's role in the franchising process.

Mr. Smith: Is not the Prime Minister revealing that the Government are accepting an amendment and then seeking to nullify it? Instead of those cynical tricks, would not it be better to take this legislation away altogether, because 80 per cent. of the British public know that rail privatisation means higher fares and fewer services? It is a rotten deal for taxpayer and traveller.

The Prime Minister: It is precisely to produce a better deal for taxpayers and travellers that we are bringing in private sector skills to ensure that British Rail is run more efficiently. The Labour party on this, as on other issues, really needs to make up its mind. The right hon. and learned Gentleman effectively accuses us of making sham concessions. [Interruption.] Yes, oh splendid. In that case, his hon. Friend who speaks for his party said that it was a U-turn. It cannot be both.

Sir Anthony Durant: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 October.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Sir Anthony Durant: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be aware of the two bombs that were put in Reading station last weekend. Will he pass on, through my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, the grateful thanks of the people of Reading for the fact that the railway police, the Army and the railway staff defused that bomb, which would have caused major damage and loss of life? Will he, therefore, as Prime Minister, take tough action against those vicious terrorists?

The Prime Minister: I am happy to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the Army, the police, the emergency services and the staff of British Rail for the magnificent way in which they dealt with the incidents at the weekend. I believe that they deserve the utmost thanks and credit for the way in which they sought to protect the public.
The terrorists will achieve nothing whatsoever from those crimes of violence. Their readiness to kill and their readiness to inflict injury will merely reinforce the Government's determination and, I hope, the determination of everyone in the House to ensure that they gain nothing whatsover now or in the future from their actions.

Mr. Faulds: Does the Prime Minister recall that he gained considerable international kudos when he mounted the initiative to safeguard or to try to safeguard the Kurds in northern Iraq? Now that his Government and other European Governments have so abysmally failed the Bosnian Muslims, would he perhaps restore his credibility, even only fractionally, were he to launch an initiative to try to safeguard the Marsh Arabs—the Shi'ias—in southern Iraq, an issue which the Prince of Wales raised in his admirable speech to the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies yesterday?

The Prime Minister: I do not accept for one second the hon. Gentleman's strictures on helping the Bosnians, in particular the Bosnian Muslims. There is no country in Europe or beyond that has such a proud record of humanitarian assistance over the past two years. It would be more graceful of the hon. Gentleman to acknowledge that fact. I fully share the concerns expressed by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales about the draining of the marshes in southern Iraq. It is a matter on which the Government have spoken before.
We and the Security Council have repeatedly condemned repression of the Shi'ias and have repeatedly demanded full access for the United Nations. That, we believe, is the right way for us to continue in this matter. I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that we do not regard this as a light matter to be casually pushed aside. We will continue to pursue it in the right way and in the right place, and that is the United Nations.

Mr. David Atkinson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 October.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Atkinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, with social security abuse and fraud costing our constituents many billions of pounds a year, they will welcome the introduction of an identity card scheme, which will do nothing to threaten civil liberty but do much to support and encourage individual freedom and responsibility?

The Prime Minister: I know that my hon. Friend speaks for many people, and I share whole-heartedly his wish to stamp out social security fraud. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security is looking at a range of options to step up the fight against fraud, and as part of that he is looking at the practicalities of the introduction of an identity card scheme. Frankly, I find the principle of such a scheme to be attractive, but there are many practical difficulties to be overcome.

Q.4 Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 October.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Mitchell: It looks very much as though the Government are not reducing interest rates because they are covertly shadowing the deutschmark once again. At the same time, other European Governments are saying that Maastricht is not dead, that the exchange rate mechanism should be reconstituted and that the timetable for monetary union can and should be followed. In other words, we are probably in for Europe's biggest ever outburst of necrophilia. What will the Prime Minister be saying about stage 2 of monetary union and about the burdens, the timetables and the obligations that it imposes?

The Prime Minister: I commend to the hon. Gentleman an excellent article he may have seen in The Economist not very long ago which set out clearly the way in which the Government will proceed in terms of the future of our policy in Europe. Stage 2 of economic and monetary union involves no infringement whatever of sovereignty over monetary affairs. It is fixed in the international treaty and it is fixed in our legislation. But it does not mean that we proceed to stage 3 and it does not infringe in any way our own monetary sovereignty.

Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 October.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Sir Peter Tapsell: May I join its author in congratulating the writer of the article in The Economist on 25 September, which set out clearly and in a masterly fashion the traditional policy of the British Government towards the European Community? May I express to my right hon. Friend the belief that almost the whole of the Conservative parliamentary party and, indeed, the British electorate will be able to unite behind his total rejection in that article of economic and monetary union, a single European currency and a united states of Europe? Will he repeat the points he made in that article in forceful terms to the 11 Heads of Government whom he will meet in Brussels tomorrow?

The Prime Minister: I rather fancy that the other Heads of Government noticed what I wrote while on holiday in Portugal, which was subsequently printed in The Economist article, so they will be in no doubt about the Government's position. As appropriate, I will re-endorse it tomorrow and on other occasions.

Mr. Purchase: The Governor of the Bank of England has made it perfectly clear that he regards zero inflation as the overriding goal of economic policy. Has the Prime Minister made an assessment of the effects of such a policy on unemployment and growth?

The Prime Minister: I made clear to the House well over three years ago how important I regarded ensuring that we got inflation down to the lowest possible level. No one has ever been in any doubt about the determination of the Government to achieve that. We have achieved it. We have inflation now at a lower level than we have seen for 30-odd years. We have interest rates at a lower level than we have seen for a very long time. They are the essential prerequisites to sustainable growth over the medium and long term.

Mr. Bates: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 October.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Bates: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the announcement made by Nissan yesterday of a £26 million expansion to its car plant at Sunderland? Does he agree that that investment will further strengthen the manufacturing base of the north-east and that it is a substantial vote of confidence in favour of the work force in Sunderland and in the strength of the British-led economic recovery?

The Prime Minister: It is certainly a substantial vote of confidence in the work force at Sunderland, and I am absolutely delighted at this increased investment by Nissan. I have to make the point that if we had followed policies that piled on employers social costs such as the minimum wage and the social contract, I strongly suspect that that investment would not have come to this country but would have gone elsewhere.

Mr. McGrady: In view of the grave political and security problem in Northern Ireland caused mainly by the political vacuum of the past 12 months because the Democratic Unionist party and the Conservative and Unionist party refused to attend the conference table, will the Prime Minister, in union with the Irish Government, reconvene the round table conference of all the democratic parties so that the private documents of the DUP and the official Unionist party, and the document of my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), can be placed on the table? More than that, the distrust and the fears of the people of Northern Ireland can be removed by proper political dialogue and some hope for the future can be given.
As a writer, will the Prime Minister take note of the statement made in the Dail yesterday by the Tanaiste, Dick Spring, setting out six principles that all fair-minded people would regard as a fair basis of political progress in Ireland as a whole?

The Prime Minister: It is precisely to ensure that we get a proper political process and the return of constitutional rights to the people of Northern Ireland that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has been pursuing with such skill and vigour—as did his predecessor—the three-stranded approach in Northern Ireland. I saw with great interest the remarks of the Tanaiste yesterday and I hope to have the opportunity of discussing them with the Taoiseach tomorrow.

Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 October.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Fabricant: My right hon. Friend will be aware of my love of motor biking. Can he imagine the distress that I felt when some years ago I motor biked across Europe and had to do so on a Yamaha—a Japanese motor bike? Will he join me in congratulating Triumph on producing more motor bikes in the large motor bike league than either Suzuki, BMW or Harley Davidson?

The Prime Minister: I was delighted to see the success of Triumph and I hope that my hon. friend will soon be again riding a Triumph motor cycle across Europe, and perhaps elsewhere.

Police Responsibilities and Rewards

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): With your permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to make a statement on behalf of the three Secretaries of State for the Home Departments on our decisions about police pay and conditions of service in the light of the Sheehy report.
The police are of unique and vital importance to everyone in the country. They are the front line in the fight against crime, and essential to maintaining public order and ensuring safe communities. As was demonstrated only too tragically in Clapham last week, policemen and women face lethal dangers, often quite unexpectedly. They have to cope with the many pressures of providing a service to the public 24 hours day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year.
The inquiry led by Sir Patrick Sheehy was appointed to consider afresh the rewards and responsibilities of that vital public service. I am grateful to Sir Patrick and the other members of his team for their valuable work in producing that wide-ranging report so quickly. The report was published at the end of June. Since then, we have consulted widely and have received many helpful responses, including, in particular, those of the police staff associations, police authorities and the local authority associations. Today I am setting out the Government's decisions about the best way forward for the police service. In deciding on those changes, I have been mindful at all times of the special nature of our police service and the work that it does.
We all want to create an up-to-date framework of arrangements which will encourage police officers to give of their best. Change is necessary to ensure that the British police remain the best in the world. In the police service, pay has too often been too dependent on length of service. Bureaucracy and chains of command have increased, leaving too many officers behind desks instead of on the streets. The present rank structure can act as a barrier to the rapid progress of more able officers. I want a modern and effective police service. That means less bureaucracy, rapid promotion for able officers, rewards for hard work and the highest priority for front-line duties.
This afternoon I am placing in the Library of the House copies of a letter which I am sending to all chief officers in England and Wales which sets out our proposals in detail. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Northern Ireland are also writing to their chief officers. I shall now explain those proposals to the House.
The Committee was expressly asked to consider the future of the ranks. It recommended that the ranks of deputy chief constable, chief superintendent and chief inspector should be abolished. That would eliminate the overlap between ranks at present. It will enable those with the greatest ability to move more quickly through them. Reducing the ranks would also give chief constables the opportunity to put more police constables on the beat. All the responses to our consultation agreed that some change in management structure was necessary.
We believe that this proposal is the key to the streamlining of middle management in the police service, which is essential to free up resources for front-line policing. We have therefore decided to accept it. Many forces have begun to reduce the number of chief

superintendent and chief inspector posts to meet the changing needs of policing. That process will now be completed by 1 April 1995.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has decided to make a limited number of adjustments to the overall package to accommodate the special and different circumstance of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. In particular, the rank of deputy chief constable will be retained to meet the unique operational demands of policing in Northern Ireland.
The report recommended that fixed-term appointments should be introduced for all ranks. We have decided to accept that recommendation, in so far as it applies to future appointments to chief officer ranks, for whom it was almost universally regarded as appropriate. We shall consider extending the appointments to the superintendent rank when we have monitored their effectiveness for chief officers.
Different considerations apply to other ranks. I have already announced new procedures for dealing with unsatisfactory performance and misconduct in England and Wales, and we shall legislate as soon as possible to allow for the consequences of restructuring. I want people entering the police service to see it as a career. The skills and knowledge of ordinary police officers, their experience and their accumulated wisdom form the backbone of British policing, which is admired throughout the world. We do not consider that fixed-term appointments are appropriate for ranks below superintendent, and so we have decided not to accept that recommendation.
The report recommended significant changes to police pension arrangements. Those were closely related to the proposals for fixed-term appointments and must therefore be reconsidered, so we shall undertake a full review of police pensions. One of its principal objectives will be to produce greater flexibility.
One aspect of the recommendations excited controversy: that officers of all ranks should be expected to serve for 40 years to receive a full pension at the age of 60. That would not help to encourage mature people with experience in other walks of life to join the police, as we wish. Patrol duties are not appropriate for people in their late 50s, and we do not think that it is reasonable for constables and sergeants, in particular, to be expected invariably to continue to serve until then. We have therefore decided not to accept that proposal.
On performance-related pay, the report suggested that that objective could best be met by the application of a matrix determining police pay according to the scope of the job and the level of responsibility, experience, skills and performance. The Government fully accept the principles behind that recommendation, but we do not think it practicable or desirable to examine each job in the way that the report suggests and have therefore decided not to use the matrix recommended in the report. Instead, we will introduce—as soon as they can be worked out—arrangements which depend on the overall appraisal of performance. That will take account of an officer's experience, skills and the circumstances in which they are exercised, and will determine progress up or down the pay scale.
The report also recommended replacing the Edmund-Davies pay formula. In considering how police pay levels should be determined and on what basis pay should be uprated, the inquiry took account of the fact that police officers are often called upon to put their lives in danger


and, moreover, they do not take industrial action. The inquiry recognised—as do the Government—that that type of dedication deserves a consistent and clearly defined way of setting policy pay.
The report recommended linking pay uprating to the median of non-manual, private sector pay settlements. That linkage recognises both the professionalism of the police service and its special nature, which justifies the comparison with settlements in the private sector. We accept that recommendation.
The report recommended that pay levels should also be linked to the median of pay levels in the private sector. Although we agree with the inquiry that there should be some private sector benchmark, the case has not been made out for it to be that particular one. We shall be carrying out further work to form the basis for our decision on the most appropriate benchmark for future police pay levels.
The report also made proposals on the whole range of allowances received by police officers. The most significant of those is housing allowance, which the report recommended should be abolished as police officers are no longer automatically required to live in a particular location. We accept that recommendation for new officers recruited after 1 September 1994. For those already in service, housing allowance will remain. It will be frozen at its present level but will not be removed or reduced.
The report suggested that, at present, starting pay is higher than is needed for the recruitment of able police officers. The recommendation was based on evidence about the starting pay of 18 to 22-year-olds. We believe that our police service benefits substantially from having older recruits with wider experience and that starting salaries should be pitched so as to continue to attract them as well as high calibre younger recruits. We have therefore decided not to accept that recommendation.
The report recommended that the range of other allowances received by police officers, which represent only a small proportion of take-home pay, should be a matter for local discretion. That is clearly in line with the proposals in the White Paper for police reform for allowing police authorities and chief officers greater discretion to match resources to needs locally. We accept that recommendation.
I have set out the decisions of principle that we have reached on the main recommendations of the Sheehy report. A great deal of further work remains to be done on their detailed implementation. I am therefore today inviting the independent chairman of the Police Negotiating Board, Professor Laurie Hunter, to convene the board to consider the details of implementation of the decisions of principle that I have announced. I have asked him to do so on the basis of the proposals put forward by the official side during the consultation period. The board will make recommendations which we can take into consideration before preparing the detailed regulations needed to give effect to changes in pay and conditions of service from September 1994.
I am glad to be able to end the uncertainty which the police service has, inevitably, faced while I consulted it and others on the Sheehy proposals. As our decisions show, we have listened carefully to what the police service had to say. Our objective must be to create the framework that will encourage our police service to be as effective as possible in the fight against crime. To be effective, it must

be properly led, managed and rewarded. It must have the flexibility that it needs to deploy its resources as modern policing and local communities require.
The proposals that I have announced today will help achieve those objectives. By cutting down on middle management we shall allow chief constables to put more resources into fighting crime. That could mean more work on crime prevention; or more computers and modern technology to fight crime; or up to 3,000 more police officers on the front line, protecting the public. That is what the changes will do, and that is my blueprint for our police service for the future. I commend my proposals to the House.

Mr. Tony Blair: I thank the Home Secretary for his statement. There has unquestionably been the great clamour of a Government retreat, but the direction in which they are retreating is still entirely unclear.
The Home Secretary said that the details of the proposals are set out in a letter that he has put in the Library. I have that letter now and can tell the House that the details are still far from clear. While the implications for ordinary officers, in pounds, shillings and pence, are not clear and uncertainty remains, so will the undermining of police morale which the Government have caused.
May I put six specific points on the details which have a direct implication on what an officer will get?
First, the Secretary of State is ending, is he not, the: Edmund-Davies pay formula. He said that he is accepting the principle of the Sheehy recommendation that there should be a private sector median formula. Will he confirm that under the Sheehy formula there will be pay cuts for the ordinary police constable of on average up to 33 per cent.? Will his formula mean pay cuts? We should be told.
Secondly, on performance-related pay, the Secretary of State presumably accepts the principles behind the Sheehy report. Is he keeping the present fixed pay scale but merely introducing an element of appraisal, or is he abandoning the present pay scale and putting a different pay scale in its place? If there is to be a change, what is the implication of that pay scale for officers? If the issue is to be dealt with by the Police Negotiating Board, is its decision binding or is it a recommendation? Is that board the new police negotiating board that Sheehy recommends or is it the board that exists?
Thirdly, on fixed-term contracts, I have studied the letter in the Library. The objection of the police to fixed-term contracts was that they would make it possible to terminate contracts, not on grounds of misconduct or incapability, but on structural grounds—cost-saving grounds. Does the recommendation that there should be termination on structural grounds still stand? If that power remains, it has a vital impact on how the report will be viewed.
Fourthly, the Secretary of State did not mention overtime. Does he accept the Sheehy recommendation that incidental overtime should be banned? If he is banning it, will he confirm that the effect will be that, if an arrest is made at 11.30 on a Friday night and the officer ends his shift at 12 o'clock, the next four or five hours spent processing the arrest will be unpaid? Is that true, and, if so, will it be accepted?
Fifthly, Sheehy estimates that up to 5,000 officers will be removed as a result of the abolition of the ranks. Is that also the Secretary of State's estimate? Most important of all, has his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of


the Exchequer guaranteed the £200 million severance package for those officers? Is that part of his proposals? The Secretary of State's letter says nothing about that. If that package is not forthcoming, the basis of the Sheehy report, which was that those officers would go and others would be put on to the beat, cannot be maintained. Will he answer that argument specifically?
Sixthly, on a matter of detail, there is an agreement about short-term contracts for chief constables. Will the Secretary of State accept that there is concern about the combination of the change—involving short-term contracts for chief constables—and the policing White Paper, which means that chief constables are now to be appointed by the Government through the police authority, not elected authorities, and are to operate under guidelines of finance from the Government? Will he accept that there is a legitimate concern that even if he has barred the Sheehy report from the front door—I do not think it is clear that he has—it may slip in through the back?
The test of any reform, whether the Secretary of State's or Sheehy's—and of the extra work that has to happen before we know the true outline of the proposals—is whether it will cut crime or is designed merely to cut costs. Will it put more police officers on the beat? Will it make our communities safer? While the confusion surrounding the Home Secretary's proposals remains, the undermining of police morale through what the Government have been doing in the past few months will continue and the fight against crime will be impaired.

Mr. Howard: The most extraordinary aspect of the tirade that we have heard from the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is that he has not said a word about the attitude of the Labour party to the decisions that I have announced today. He talks of retreat. He decided to sit firmly on the fence on the day that he took his present job. He has been there ever since—he has never come off it.
We are still waiting to hear from the hon. Gentleman what his party's position is on the 27 announcements that I made in my speech at Blackpool and on those that I made today. All he can do is practise his soundbites in the Daily Mirror and fail to come to the House with any inkling of the attitude of his party on these proposals.
Let me deal now with the points that the hon. Gentleman raised. He suggested that using the Sheehy formula instead of the Edmund-Davies formula would lead to cuts in police pay. That just shows how little he understands these matters. We are talking about a different formula for uprating police pay. One cannot uprate police pay in order to cut police pay; the idea is nonsense. We are using the Sheehy formula: the median of private sector non-manual pay. That is what Sheehy recommended and it is what I said clearly in my statement. It deals with uprating. The formula will not cut any police officer's pay.
We will introduce an appraisal-based system of performance pay. Its precise relationship with the pay scales will be a matter on which I shall await proposals from the Police Negotiating Board. That will not be the board recommended by the Sheehy committee; it will be the board in its present form, operating under the Police Negotiating Board Act 1980. As the hon. Gentleman should know, under that Act the board makes

recommendations to me. They are not binding recommendations, but I have every confidence that the board will come up with sensible answers.
This applies also to the extent to which the board will consider overtime arrangements. I accept the recommendation of the Sheehy report that overtime for inspectors should be abolished, and they will be compensated by the increase in salary. Overtime for other ranks will be changed; details will be worked out by the Police Negotiating Board on the basis of the official side proposals.
So the answers to all the hon. Gentleman's questions are clear. If I correctly understood him, he regretted—perhaps even deplored—the fact that we were remitting the details of these proposals to the Police Negotiating Board. He suggested that that might lead to continuing uncertainty and might have an impact on the morale of the police.
I thought that the hon. Gentleman might have talked to the police over the past few weeks. If he had talked to the staff associations, he would have realised that they were keen on having the details of these matters remitted to the Police Negotiating Board, which is the proper place for them to be resolved. Indeed, I have a legal obligation to listen to what that board says before reaching final decisions on these matters. I was therefore sorry to learn from the hon. Gentleman's response that he is completely unaware of how the staff associations wanted the detailed decisions to be implemented.
The truth of the matter is that, some weeks ago, the hon. Member for Sedgefield wrote an article about the Sheehy report. He said in it "If the Government got it right, we should not be reluctant to praise them." It is a great pity that the hon. Gentleman did not have the guts today to live up to what he wrote several months ago. Instead, he came to the Dispatch Box with weasel words that did not include one sentence about the attitude of his party to these matters.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his sensible, practical and realistic response to the Sheehy proposals. It will be widely welcomed. The shadow Home Secretary owes it to the House to set out exactly what the Labour party's attitude is to the Sheehy proposals, not to disappear into a morass of footnote details.
I have two questions—first, on the appraisal of officers' performance. Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that during his career a police officer will be subject to appraisal at regular intervals and that there will be assessment of his performance? I trust that those who regularly do not come up to standard will be expected to leave the force.
Secondly, will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the proposals set out three years ago on community policing—smaller operational units, local police officers staying longer in their areas and being more visible on the beat—remain the chief principle behind the reform of the police service?

Mr. Howard: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for his support, and I can certainly give him the assurances that he seeks. Under arrangements that have already been announced police officers will be regularly appraised on performance. If performance is unsatisfactory over a period of time, there will be procedures to enable the chief constable to take the necessary action to terminate the appointment of that police officer.
I am as enthusiastic as I know my right hon. Friend is that community policing should occupy a most prominent place in the approach of chief constables to policing arrangements. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for the steps that he took when he held my office to encourage that development. Under our White Paper proposals, chief constables will have much greater discretion on the way in which they manage their forces than has been the case hitherto, and I know that they will continue to place the greatest value on community policing and that they will take it forward in a way that I know my right hon. Friend would welcome.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I am relieved, and no doubt the police will feel relieved, that the Home Secretary has shown more wisdom than did his predecessor in setting up Sheehy by rejecting the core of the report's findings and disposing of almost all its significant recommendations, which were effectively demolished by the Touche Ross report on behalf of the Police Federation.
To ensure that performance appraisal makes a significant contribution to police efficiency and does not simply drown the police in a torrent of further paperwork, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman ensure that forthcoming proposals are properly pilot tested?
On restructuring, will the Home Secretary make sure that his proposed changes do not result in increased costs being borne by a reduction in the number of police in the front line, even temporarily, as was proposed by Sir Patrick Sheehy?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman's response was a trifle more graceful than that of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion about pilot appraisal, although I am not convinced that that is necessarily the best way forward. It will take a little time to put effective appraisal arrangements in place, but we shall take his suggestion into account.
I have made it clear that, for my part, the object of the exercise is to improve the effectiveness of policing and, to achieve that objective, to increase the number of front-line officers on our streets. In my statement I said that I thought that the results of these changes could be to increase the number of such officers by about 3,000 in addition to the 2,300 who could be released by the changes in paperwork that I announced last week. That is at the forefront of our objectives, and we shall strive to make sure that everything possible is done to achieve it.

Sir Anthony Grant: Will my right hon. and learned Friend totally reject the nonsense we have heard from the Opposition Front Bench? They have not the faintest idea of what their view is on Sheehy or what to do about crime generally. My right hon. and learned Friend should disregard them completely.
My right hon. and learned Friend has taken an extremely sensible line in accepting what is good in the Sheehy report and rejecting what is bad. He is particularly wise in his line on starting salaries and fixed-term contracts. Will he ensure that every encouragement is given to ex-servicemen who are so unhappily available as a result of "Options for Change" and who have great experience, a great deal of ability and a tremendous amount to contribute to the good of the police service?

Mr. Howard: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his words of welcome for my proposals. I entirely agree with him. As I said in my statement, mature recruits have a great deal to offer the police service. That applies especially to ex-servicemen who may wish to apply for positions in the police service in the circumstances to which my hon. Friend referred. That is one of the principal reasons why I have rejected the Sheehy recommendation on the levels of starting pay. I hope that the police service will continue to benefit from the entry of mature recruits such as those mentioned by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Chris Mullin: Does the Home Secretary have any plans to deal with what the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Mr. Paul Condon, defined as noble cause corruption in the police which has caused so much damage to public confidence in recent years? Does he have any plans to deal with the high incidence of freemasonry in the police force which is so deeply resented by officers who are not freemasons and so corrosive of public confidence in the police?

Mr. Howard: The law applies to police officers as it does to everyone, and it is to the law that we have to look for safeguards against corruption. The police are as enthusiastic as anyone—indeed, rather more so than anyone else—to root out corruption where it exists in the police service; I know that the commissioner and other police officers are determined to leave no stone unturned to get to the root of such matters where there is evidence. Freemasonry is not a crime.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Since the Sheehy committee was totally independent of Government, and since my right hon. and learned Friend has never from start to finish identified himself with any of its provisions until today, does not the Opposition make itself look foolish by calling for him to retreat? Did not the BBC announcers make themselves look foolish and perverse by calling it a climb-down? Is not my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the police want their force to be efficient and effective? They want more young men and women to join it as a career and they want more policemen on the beat. Is he aware that his proposals will achieve that end and should be widely welcomed by the police?

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. He is right in the strictures that he passes on the BBC announcer this morning, but, to be fair to the BBC, its home affairs correspondent immediately pointed out that, as the Government were not in any sense and had never been committed to the proposals in the Sheehy report, there could be no question of climb-down or retreat. The response of the hon. Member for Sedgefield to that point was absolutely pathetic. The hon. Gentleman is in danger of elevating indecision to the level of a constitutional principle.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: The Ulster Unionist party, with the majority of law-abiding citizens in the United Kingdom, will be pleased and relieved to hear that the Government have met the legitimate concerns of the police. The realistic and objective approach to Sheehy that the Home Secretary has brought to the House today should not cloak the reality that the police are open to reasonable change, as is required. They recognise that they must endeavour to open up proper channels of communication with the general public if the


ills of society are to be overcome. However, we all recognise that any drop in the morale of the police would be totally unacceptable to that end.
The special and different role of the RUC that has been mentioned today is acknowledged, but as the parliamentary adviser to the RUC federation, let me say that the RUC would not set themselves on a different plain from their colleagues throughout the United Kingdom and will be deeply relieved that their work will not be hindered by some of the less acceptable aspects of the Sheehy report.

Mr. Howard: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his words of welcome. In responding to him, let me pay tribute to the Royal Ulster Constabulary, a force which carries out its duties in such difficult circumstances in an exemplary fashion.

Mr. Michael Shersby: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that his wise and statesmanlike decision this afternoon will go a long way towards alleviating the understandable concerns of the police during the past few months while the Sheehy report has been considered? In particular, his decision to refer points of detail to the Police Negotiating Board will be warmly welcomed by the Police Federation and other staff associations. I believe that the police know that today they have a listening Home Secretary whom they can trust and with whom they can work, and that he will have their full support.

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I pay tribute to the part that he played in my discussions with the Police Federation during the months of the consultation period. It responded most positively to the consultation exercise, recognised the need for change and came forward with proposals of its own. I have by no means been able to accept all the federation's proposals, but I am absolutely clear that we now have a basis on which to move forward together in order to give this country the improved policing that it wants and deserves.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Does the Home Secretary now regret that his predecessor embarked on this sad, sorry and disturbing process? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not like the word "retreat", does he accept that his tactical withdrawal will be widely welcomed? An even bigger welcome will follow the Home Secretary's decision to ensure that the centralisation process promised in the White Paper does not proceed.

Mr. Howard: There is no question of retreat or of withdrawal. I have consistently said that the Government never previously declared their views on the Sheehy recommendations.
I will certainly directly answer the first of the hon. Gentleman's questions. I do not regret for one moment the committee's establishment. It did extremely valuable work and helped to promote general recognition, not least in the police service itself, of the need for change. I have accepted many of its recommendations, and I pay tribute to the work of Sir Patrick and his committee.

Sir George Gardiner: My right hon. and learned Friend will know of my connection with the National Association of Retired Police Officers, all of whom will surely welcome the fact that my right hon. and

learned Friend has consigned Sheehy's proposals on police retirement and pensions to the waste paper basket, where they belong.
Will my right hon. and learned Friend elaborate on his proposed review of the exit arrangements for police officers? Will it be an internal review, how long will it take, and how will it relate to the other discussions that he outlined this afternoon?

Mr. Howard: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks. The review will be internal, and it will be completed as soon as possible. We would like the new arrangements to be in place as soon as practicable. When we have particular proposals, we shall want to consult upon them.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Home Secretary aware that, instead of spending all that time trotting out that long-winded retreat, he needed only to say, "It wasn't me, guv'nor—it was that Ken Clarke wot done it"? Better still, the Home Secretary did not need to come here at all: he could have demanded the right to remain silent.

Mr. Howard: That was not up to the hon. Gentleman's usual standard, but no doubt we shall hear better from him in due course. In an earlier answer, I paid tribute to the work of the committee, which provided a valuable service. I do not believe that we would have reached today's position, with widespread recognition of the need for change, had it not been for the committee's work.

Mr. James Couchman: My right hon. and learned Friend will have noted the importance that official Opposition Members attach to his significant statement this afternoon, demonstrated by the fact that barely 20 of them are present.
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that appraisal is not new to the police force and that the best forces already appraise their men on their performance? The tie-up with pay is novel, but by failing to fall into the trap of the matrix system, my right hon. and learned Friend will not negate all the people that he has taken off paperwork duties and put back on the force. It is good news that we are not to have the highly bureaucratic scheme recommended by Sheehy.

Mr. Howard: I think that my hon. Friend was a bit hard on Opposition Back Benchers. After all, if their spokesman is not prepared to say a word about his party's attitude to the proposals, how can he expect them to turn up? Were I in their position, I would not have bothered to come and listen to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair).
I agree with my hon. Friend about appraisal. One of the criticisms of the Sheehy matrix was that it might have led to excessive bureaucracy. We want to cut the amount of paperwork that deflects and diverts the police from the work that we want them to do, rather than add to it.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: When exactly will we see the extra policemen and policewomen on the beat? The rank restructuring of which the Home Secretary spoke will cost money. Will he implement the severance package proposed by Sheehy? Will he put the extra resources into carrying out that restructuring, and will he also put extra resources into putting more policemen and policewomen on the beat?

Mr. Howard: That last observation was a bit rich, coming from a Labour Member. It is a bit rich for Labour


to talk about putting more policemen on the beat when the Government have put nearly 17,000 more people into the police service—in addition to the 16,000 more civilians who are now working for the service—and nearly doubled the amount that we spend on it, in real terms. We will take no lectures from the Labour party about police officers on the beat or money for the police service.
Restructuring will be a matter for chief constables. We believe in devolved management: we believe that chief constables are the best people to decide the pace at which they introduce changes to their force. As the middle-management posts disappear, they will be able to recruit the extra front-line constables to whom I referred in my statement.

Mr. John Greenway: Is it not clear from what we have heard today that the single event that would do most to undermine police morale would be the election of a Labour Government, given Labour's record of failure to support the police in the 1960s and 1970s? Is it not equally clear that what the public want is a consistent, continuing and abiding relationship with their local police officers? Is my right hon. and learned Friend satisfied that the new arrangements that he has outlined will provide a career structure in front-line policing for new policemen?

Mr. Howard: Given his experience of these matters, my hon. Friend is entirely right to emphasise the importance of a career structure—and, in particular, the importance of a career structure for front-line officers. That is one of the great advantages of the changes that I have announced today they will enable a police constable who is excellent at his job, but has no desire to be promoted to any other rank, to gain the recognition that his good performance demands. That has not always been possible under the existing arrangements; it will be possible to a much greater extent under the new arrangements that I propose. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for identifying and recognising their benefits.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I warmly welcome the Home Secretary's rejection of the more contentious parts of the Sheehy report. Will he ensure that any future discussion of pay and structure genuinely includes all staff associations at an early stage? The Sheehy process has undermined morale for several months in many of our constituencies.
May I ask the Home Secretary a specific question about pay? He referred to the private sector. Will comparison be at national level, or will it be at local or regional level? That is a matter of concern in many areas. May I also ask whether the islands allowance in Scotland will continue?

Mr. Howard: Comparison will be at national level, as it is now. It will be based on a different formula—the formula recommended by the Sheehy committee.
As I said in my statement, we are abolishing central payment of allowances other than housing allowance for currently serving officers; but the future of those allowances will be at the discretion of local chief officers. If a local chief officer decides that the islands allowance would be appropriate, it will be perfectly possible for that allowance to continue to be paid. Those matters and others will be considered by the Police Negotiating Board.
I can give the hon. Lady the assurance that I think she is seeking. The staff associations are fully represented on the Police Negotiating Board at the moment, and I do not

envisage any changes to those arrangements while these matters are being sorted out. The Police Negotiating Board has its own plans for restructuring itself in due course.

Mr. James Hill: My right hon. and learned Friend is to be congratulated. When the Sheehy report first came out, it was met with horror by most on the Tory Back Benches, and throughout, certainly, the Hampshire police service. If we had not moved directly against some of the worst aspects of the Sheehy report, we would not have been able to call on the police to defend us from anarchy in the future—it is as serious as that—and we would have moved away from the close bond that politicians have always had with the police. The police would have seen the Sheehy report as some sort of retail commercial project and would not have understood what was in the mind of the Sheehy committee. My right hon. and learned Friend has performed a very worthy service for the House and the United Kingdom.

Mr. Howard: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words. Views on the Sheehy report recommendations have varied widely. What I have announced today are not the Sheehy recommendations, or some version of them, but the Government's decisions on the way forward for the police service.

Mr. John McFall: What the police will learn from this report is that the Edmund-Davies formula, which was established by the Labour Government in 1978, is to be abandoned. Is there not a hidden agenda, where the Home Office mission to extend control has been achieved at the expense of community policing? The police consider the elimination of some ranks to be crude and unproductive. How many extra police will be put on the beat, and how will crime be affected by that? Is it not the case that the Home Secretary is doing something for the police but nothing about crime?

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He is the first Opposition Member to have expressed a view on any of the decisions that I have announced. At last we have a voice from the Labour party that is prepared to express a view on these matters. As far as I can tell, that view is one of total opposition, which is typical of the Labour party. It harks back to a decision of the last Labour Government —which was not honoured—and totally ignores the changes that have taken place in the world ever since. Truly, the hon. Gentleman spoke for the antediluvian tendency of the Labour party.
The hon. Gentleman said that none of the decisions that I have announced will have any effect on fighting crime. I do not know what sort of world the hon. Gentleman lives in if he believes that 3,000 more officers on the front line will not have any effect on combating crime. That is the kind of dream world of fiction in which the Labour party lives. We will see a thinning of middle managment ranks, which will make more resources available to chief officers to recruit constables for front-line duties. That is something that the people of this country will warmly welcome, whatever the curmudgeonly antics of the Labour party.

Mr. Henry Bellingham: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that his balanced and pragmatic package will help to restore not only the morale of the police but that of people in the communities that have been victimised by a rising crime wave? In rural Norfolk, people particularly welcome his plan to put more


bobbies on the beat and his scheme for the introduction of parish constables. Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House what plans he has for reviewing police force boundaries, which often inhibit efficient policing?

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome for the proposals, particularly on parish constables, who I believe could play a significant part in helping to combat crime in rural areas. I have no plans at present to review the boundaries of police areas, but if any local police authority wishes to put forward proposals to me, including the Norfolk police authority, I shall study them with great interest and care.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Can the Minister give some balanced and pragmatic details about the overtime payments, which will relate to the number of officers who are available? For instance, in the Royal Ulster Constabulary a great deal of overtime must be worked because of terrorism and that force would require another 3,000 officers to cover the overtime that is required now. What does the right hon. and learned Gentleman propose to do about overtime?

Mr. Howard: I repeat to the hon. Gentleman what I said earlier: overtime for inspectors will be abolished and inspectors will be compensated for that by an addition to their salaries. The basis of overtime for other ranks will be changed, but the details of those changes will be worked out by the Police Negotiating Board. On the official side, detailed proposals have been put forward relating to changes to overtime and they will be a starting point for negotiations in the PNB.

Mr. Edward Garnier: Will my right hon. and learned Friend join me in congratulating Mr. Barjat Singh of Leicestershire who has recently joined Leicestershire constabulary as a mature entrant at the age of 33 and has been accepted on to the accelerated promotion scheme? My right hon. and learned Friend should particularly congratulate Mr. Singh because, until last week, he was the chairman of the Labour-controlled Leicestershire police authority. Does not his decision to join the police prove how successful the Government's policies have been in advancing better policing in this country?

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. It is proof of their success and perhaps it is some indication of the extent to which people in such positions are thoroughly fed up with left-wing Labour politics.

Mr. John Gunnell: Given the benefit of the experience that the Home Secretary has gained in the past few weeks, does he agree with two propositions? First, many of the difficulties that have been encountered in the past few weeks and, in particular, the uncertainty felt by the police would have been eased if, given we are dealing with a professional service, consultations could have taken place at an earlier stage, perhaps before the terms of reference were stated.
Secondly, since the Home Secretary has accepted relatively few of Sheehy's major proposals, does he agree that perhaps it is not such a good idea for business men to study that public service? Perhaps it would be a good idea

if the right hon. and learned Gentleman were to abandon his proposals to appoint business men as chairmen of police authorities.

Mr. Howard: On the hon. Gentleman's final point, no, I certainly do not accept his strictures on the role of business men in this matter. I have said on many occasions that I believe that Sir Patrick Sheehy's committee has performed a valuable service. Those whom I shall appoint to police authorities will by no means necessarily be business men. I am sorry if behind the hon. Gentleman's question there existed that prejudice against business men which still infests the Opposition.
On the hon. Gentleman's first question, I do not believe that anyone could accuse the Government of lack of consultation in relation to this exercise. There were extensive consultations while the Sheehy committee was at work and I announced that there would be a further consultation period after it reported. That consultation period ended on 30 September. I came to the House as soon as possible thereafter with my decisions in order to keep to the absolute minimum the period of uncertainty to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will ignore the carping criticism from the Opposition because he should be aware that his statement will be warmly welcomed by the overwhelming majority of police officers who were horrified by some of the controversial proposals in the Sheehy report. Before he brings in any legislation, may I have an assurance that there will be meaningful consultation with our police forces because they represent the people who do the job and they therefore know far more about it than anyone else?

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. As I have said, there has been extensive consultation with the police and others since the report was published and, of course, the staff associations will be directly involved with the Police Negotiating Board in working out the details of the decisions and principles that I have announced.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I am also pleased that most of the far-fetched suggestions of the Sheehy report have been rejected by the Government, but since it appears that 90 per cent. of the report has been rejected, I must ask the Home Secretary how much has Sir Patrick Sheehy been paid? If his pay is performance-related, he does not deserve anything at all. I am pleased that the Government have listened to common sense over the report, but I draw the House's attention to the fact that the White Paper is far more dangerous and insidious and I hope that the Government will listen to common sense over that too.
Everybody knows the benefits of community policing, but it is an expensive form of policing. In the past year in north Wales we were 70 members under-manned and were refused one extra policeman. How will the chief constable allow for community policing?

Mr. Howard: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his especially churlish and ungenerous observation about Sir Patrick and his committee in view of the fact that they were all offered payment for their work and all refused payment. It may be inconceivable to Opposition Members that anybody should undertake


public service of that kind without payment, but it happens and the hon. Gentleman ought to be ashamed of himself for what lay behind his question.
Community policing is entirely at the discretion of chief constables. We are devolving management of the police service to chief constables and it is for them to decide what emphasis to place on community policing. I know, however, that they recognise its value, to which they will attach a high priority.

Mr. James Pawsey: May I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on consigning the majority of the Sheehy report to the waste bin? As the father of a police officer serving in Warwickshire, I know that his statement will give a lot of pleasure to the Pawsey household.
In his statement, my right hon. and learned Friend referred to the lethal and dangerous job of police officers. Will he seek to make that job a little less dangerous by making body armour more readily available and by speeding up the evaluation of the side-handled baton?

Mr. Howard: I am always happy to bring pleasure to the Pawsey household and happy that today's announcement has done that. My hon. Friend was not quite right in his characterisation of my response to the Sheehy recommendations. I have already said that the committee did valuable work, I have accepted many of the recommendations, and on some others I sought to achieve the same objectives in different ways.
The question of body armour is under constant evaluation. Its deployment is a matter for chief constables. As my hon. Friend will know, side-handled batons are presently being evaluated and I hope that that evaluation and the trials of the batons will be completed as soon as possible so that we can make them available to the police as soon as possible.

Mr. Bob Dunn: Will the Secretary of State confirm that those who hold the ranks that are to be abolished will be moved into other posts and on moving that their pay will not be reduced?

Mr. Howard: What happens to officers of those ranks will be a matter for the chief constables. I can assure my hon. Friend that if they are regraded, they will not suffer any loss of pay.

Mr. Tim Devlin: May I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for the sensitive and helpful way in which he responded to the concerns of the Cleveland constabulary and for withdrawing three aspects of the Sheehy proposals that especially vexed them—the matrix, the retirement age and the pay isssues? Those aspects would have demoralised the officers in Cleveland, who have managed significantly to reduce crime over recent years and who, I am sure, will warmly welcome what he has said today.

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend has correctly identified the three aspects of the proposals which caused most concern to police officers, not only in Cleveland but elsewhere. I met many officers from all parts of the country and discussed their concerns in great detail, so I am especially grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments.

Business of the House

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week, which will be as follows:
MONDAY 1 NOVEMBER—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Railways Bill.
TUESDAY 2 NOVEMBER—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Railways Bill.
WEDNESDAY 3 NOVEMBER—Supplemental timetable motion on and consideration of Lords amendments to the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill.
Proceedings on the following Bills, which are consolidation measures:

Crofters (Scotland) Bill [Lords]
Scottish Land Court Bill [Lords]
Health Service Commissioners Bill [Lords]
Probation Service Bill [Lords]
Pension Schemes Bill [Lords]
Pension Schemes (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]
Statute Law (Repeals) Bill [Lords]

Motions relating to the Football Spectators (Designation of Football Matches in England and Wales) Order, the Safety of Sports Grounds (Designation) Order and the Football Spectators Act 1989 (Commencement No. 4) Order.
Motions relating to Members' pay and motion on the Ministerial and Other Salaries Order.
THURSDAY 4 NOVEMBER—Motions relating to a scheme for additional voluntary contributions for Members and to the Parliamentary Contributory Pensions Fund.
Motions relating to the First Report, Session 1992–93, from the Select Committee on Procedure entitled "Parliamentary Questions" (House of Commons Paper No. 687).
Motion relating to financial assistance to Opposition parties.
FRIDAY 5 NOVEMBER—Subject to the progress of business, the House is expected to be prorogued.
The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages which may be received.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committees will meet at 10.30 am to consider European Community documents as follows:
TUESDAY 2 NOVEMBER
Committee B, document No. 6625/93 relating to the special rehabilitation support programme in developing countries.
WEDNESDAY 24 NOVEMBER
Committee A, document No. 7825/93 relating to reduced prices for school milk. Committee B, document Nos. 7390/92 and 7133/93 relating to postal services.
[Tuesday 2 November:
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community document: 6625/93, Overseas aid; relevant report of the European Legislation Committee: HC 79-xxxiii (1992–93).
Wednesday 24 November:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community document: 7825/93, school milk; relevant report of the European Legislation Committee: HC 79-xxxvii (1992–93).
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community documents (a) 7390/92, postal services; (b) 7133/93, the single market for postal services. Relevant reports of the European Legislation Committee:
(a) HC 79-vi (1992–93); (b) HC 79-xxxv (1992–93), HC 79-xxxvii (1992–93).]

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I thank the Lord President for that statement. Will he take on board the fact that there is considerable concern in all parties about the Child Support Agency? I think that all hon. Members would welcome an early statement from the Secretary of State for Social Security on the Government's proposals as the present position is clearly unsatisfactory.
May I also draw his attention to the reviews of London's specialist health services? He will recall that in June, or thereabouts, there was a demand for a statement on the reports but that the Government resisted on the ground that time was needed to take them into account, alongside the Tomlinson report and other factors. However, there are now extremely strong and, I understand, well-founded rumours that the Government are ready to come to a conclusion on these issues but are thinking of announcing it in the recess rather than before the House rises. That would be unacceptable to all hon. Members, so I hope that the Leader of the House will advise his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health accordingly.
I remind the Leader of the House that we are still seeking debating time on public expenditure. We give him advance notice that we should like at least one, but preferably two, Supply days before Christmas.
I realise that the following matter may have been resolved, but a number of hon. Members are worried about the business for tomorrow. There have been some rumours about whether or not it can proceed. Many of us regret the fact that the Government chose to discuss the issue on a Friday when some of us who would have liked to be here cannot be. I shall be working a full day, but, unfortunately, I shall not be able to be in the House to vote on the order. Some hon. Members are still worried about whether the business can validly be discussed tomorrow because of the legal position, and it would help us if the Leader of the House clarified that point.

Mr. Newton: The right hon. Lady has asked a variety of questions. As to her comments on the Child Support Agency and her question about an announcement on London's health service, I will of course undertake to consider her requests.
The right hon. Lady asked about public expenditure and Supply days. I was not sure whether the questions were linked or whether the Opposition wished to debate public expenditure on Supply days. I will take note of her request for Supply days in my usual and helpful way. It will be well within the right hon. Lady's knowledge that public expenditure will be dealt with alongside other matters in what will be the unified Budget shortly after the House returns. There will be opportunities to discuss those matters. The right hon. Lady will be aware of the suggestions that both she and the Procedure Committee have made in that respect.
Lastly, as to the right hon. Lady's question about tomorrow's business, I do not accept her suggestion that it is inappropriate to be debating the measure tomorrow; by

so doing it will enable us to devote a full day to matters —not necessarily that one—such as the Church which in the past were debated much more briefly and late at night. On this occasion we have a full day.
There has been legal action but the right hon. Lady will be aware that the Church of England authorities today won their case in the High Court. I understand that the High Court indicated that, in its judgment, there was nothing to delay the debate. Nor, I think I can say, is there anything in the procedures or rules of the House. In the end, of course, the question to move the motion is a matter for those concerned with the motion. I know of no reason to put pressure on them and not proceed tomorrow. If it is of any comfort to the right hon. Lady, I, too, was planning to be elsewhere but have adjusted my programme to ensure that I shall be here.

Mr. Paul Channon: I support what the right hon. Lady said about the need for a statement on the Child Support Agency. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widepread concern and considerable confusion, especially in the light of the recent court ruling? It would be extremely helpful if we could have an authoritative statement.

Mr. Newton: I am aware of the concerns expressed in various quarters, as are my right hon. and hon. Friends. I will bring that request to their attention.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I would like to take this opportunity to make that request all-party and say that it is vital that we have a statement from a Social Security Minister next week before Parliament prorogues, because of the widespread misgivings that the legislation in its practical operation is causing in the country. I am sure that Members from both sides and from all parties would welcome such a statement.
I thank the Leader of the House for finding time in this spillover session to find time for an important debate as far as we are concerned on a motion for financial assistance to Opposition parties. It is essential that the Opposition are properly financed as that will enable us to do our job properly. Although it has taken a long time to achieve, I am grateful to the Leader of the House for finding that time.
I hope that we shall be able to welcome the motion on Members' pay. When we see the terms of the motion I hope that it will bear out the assurance that the Leader of the House gave on behalf of the Government that Members' pay will not lose out in terms of the freeze on pay that we have had over the past 12 months.

Mr. Newton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments about what is known in the trade as "Short money". It has taken a long while to find time. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will think it a reasonable and just outcome. So far as Members' pay is concerned, I cannot give a precise undertaking about when the detailed resolutions will be tabled; I am not seeking to delay them. I can say in a clear-cut fashion that, in my judgment—though in the end others will wish to bring their judgment to bear—what will be proposed fulfils completely the undertakings that I gave the House at this time last year.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: If it could be arranged, a statement next week on the workings of the Child Support Agency would be ideal. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the creation of that agency had support on both sides of the House? What was designed as a


measure to catch up with people who were not honouring their obligations to their children is now being used as an instrument to punish those who are doing their best. That was not intended by hon. Members on either side of the House, and it is essential that we have an early debate so that we can see what can be done to alleviate the distress and anguish that that is causing.

Mr. Newton: The point made by my hon. Friend has been made in other quarters, too—indeed, I note that the matter has now been raised four times in the course of our exchanges today. I cannot add to what I said earlier but I will bring that fact to my right hon. Friend's attention.

Mr. John Cummings: The Leader of the House will be aware of certain assurances given to me by the Minister for Energy during questions on the coal statement last week, to the effect that pumping operations at Easington colliery would not cease until detailed investigations had been carried out. It was therefore with alarm that I learnt today that, during yesterday's debate on the coal industry, pumping operations at Easington colliery ceased. That will destroy the colliery, which was up for bids. It may also pollute the main potable water supply in the county of Durham, with consequential effects not just on the people of Durham but on the people of Tyne and Wear. Will the Leader of the House invite the Minister for Energy to come to the House as soon as possible to explain to us precisely what has happened? The pit is being sabotaged and the people in Easington and Tyne and Wear are living with a time bomb.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I am not in a position instantly to make substantive comment on what he said. I can, however, undertake to ensure that the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy is called to the hon. Gentleman's remarks, and I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will seek to be in touch with him.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend find time next week to discuss the ingenious proposal by a Lancaster city councillor that drivers of untaxed cars using city car parks should be fined? That is already done in the constituency of one of my hon. Friends, where such drivers are charged £30. People do not like freeloading scroungers and, if they were fined under such a scheme, which could spread throughout the country, the Revenue would make an enormous amount. In my constituency alone, the Revenue is losing about £130,000. That is in one district. If the scheme operated countrywide, we should make an enormous killing and would not necessarily need to put VAT on fuel.

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend's ingenuity is mind bending, as is her optimism. If I may, I will concentrate on the first part of her remarks. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I would be in favour of anything that could properly be done to ensure that people paid their taxes. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has had to leave, but I will ensure that his attention is drawn to that suggestion.

Several hon.Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members keep in mind—as I am keeping in mind—that two minority parties have motions on the Order Paper and that it is right that

they should be heard? I ask hon. Members to refrain from making speeches and to ask one question addressed directly to the Leader of the House.

Mr. Max Madden: When will the Prime Minister make a statement on the Commonwealth Heads of Government conference and so enable hon. Members, including me, to ask what action the Government are taking to persuade the Indian Government to lift the siege of the Hazratbal mosque in Kashmir?

Mr. Newton: Perhaps the most appropriate opportunity to which I can draw attention is Wednesday 3 November when my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be answering questions.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a short debate next week on the Sheehy report, to allow those hon. Members whom you.. Madam Speaker, were unable to call today—no doubt for reasons of time—to make their points, especially bearing in mind my long discussions with my own police force and the long document that I sent to the Home Secretary? My police force were particularly concerned to know that—

Madam Speaker: Order. I want no speeches. The Leader of the House is answering questions.

Mr. Greenway: I am asking for a debate so that I can raise a specific point that was more important to my police force than anything else: they do not want performance-related pay but would accept appraisal if it took account of the fact that someone who arrested—

Madam Speaker: Order. This is an abuse of guidelines that I have just given. Obviously I cannot call all hon. Members who wish to ask questions on a statement or at business questions. Business questions should not be abused. I believe that the Leader of the House has understood the hon. Gentleman's question and I await his reply.

Mr. Newton: I was about to observe, Madam Speaker, that if my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), who is known to be assiduous in these matters, remains in the Chamber until you permit me to sit down and waits long enough for the Liberal Democrat spokesman to get through what will no doubt be a short speech, he will have an opportunity to take part in a debate entitled "Prevention of Crime", in which mention of the Sheehy report might well be in order.

Mr. John Garrett: Will the Leader of the House make a statement on the action that he proposes to take to make this place more visitor friendly? For example, why are there notices at the St. Stephen's entrance saying that the public are not admitted, when in fact the public are admitted to Committees that sit upstairs and so on?

Mr. Newton: One of the curiosities of the way in which this place is now run is that the responsibilities that the hon. Gentleman attributes to me are properly those of the Accommodation and Works Committee, which at this very moment is considering ways in which the place can be made—to use the hon. Gentleman's term—more user friendly, not least, to disabled people.

Mr. Nigel Evans: In the light of the £375 million fine imposed on the Spanish and Italians for


their failure to abide by milk quotas, will the Leader of the House find time to allow hon. Members to discuss the enforcement of European Community directives, especially as we now face more of them? Yesterday, I served on a Standing Committee that discussed the waste packaging directive which, if enforced, will add £2.6 billion to the costs of British industry.

Mr. Newton: Much as I would like to, I do not know that I can undertake to find time for precisely what my hon. Friend asks but I can assure him—as is clear from everything that the British Government said and did in respect of the Maastricht treaty—that we are determined to do everything possible to ensure that Community legislation is enforced uniformly among all those who sign up to it.

Mr. John Spellar: May I draw to the attention of the Leader of the House the fact that, since tabling early-day motion 2436 on the Child Support Agency, I have been approached by a considerable number of hon. Members whose postbags, like mine, are swelling with letters on the subject?
[That this House is alarmed at reports of the operation of the Child Support Agency and, in particular, the targeting of those who are already making maintenance payments rather than those who are evading their responsibilities; and accordingly calls for the operations of the Child Support Agency to be suspended until it can be given new and more appropriate guidelines.]
Will the Leader of the House convey to the Secretary of State for Social Security the strong feeling in the House and outside it that this matter needs to be addressed and is causing enormous anxiety?

Mr. Newton: I cannot add to what I said earlier, but the hon. Gentleman has added to the number of mentions of the subject that I must draw to my right hon. Friend's attention.

Mr. Michael Stephen: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the conduct of some of the newspapers and film companies and, in particular, on the great offence that is caused to all our constituents when the media pay large sums to criminals and their relatives for their stories? It is time that we had a debate leading to legislation to ban that scandalous practice.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Newton: I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on that precise subject, but I am sure that my hon. Friend's words, which clearly draw support from elsewhere in the House, will be noted by those at whom they were directed.

Mr. John Austin-Walker: Hon. Members will recently have received from the Department of the Environment a document on the creation of the construction sponsorship directorate, which acknowledges that the construction industry contributes one third of our manufacturing base. May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to written question 147, tabled by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), and to early-day motion 2529, which stands in my name?
[That this House notes with concern reports that the bulk of tunnelling contracts for the Jubilee Line have been

awarded provisionally to foreign companies; believes this will adversely affect the ability of British companies to compete with foreign competition for future tunnelling contracts such as Cross rail and the Hackney/Chelsea link; is further concerned to learn that Italstrade may be one of the companies involved in the Jubilee contract; and asks the Government to make a statement on the current fraud investigations taking place in Italy into Italstrade.]
My hon. Friend's question and my EDM identify the consequences of the failure to invest in our infrastructure. Will the right hon. Gentleman find time next week for the Secretary of State for Transport to come to the House so that we can discuss the implications of such matters for our manufacturing industry?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman has drawn a number of matters to my attention. I imagine that he is concerned principally about the Jubilee line, a matter which is also of concern to the House authorities, for reasons that he will understand. The hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and other Ministers have been working hard on that matter; I shall bring his remarks to their attention.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be aware that my constituents, like those of many other hon. Members, want the Sunday trading issue to be resolved. Subject to what might be in the Queen's Speech, will the Leader of the House give us an assurance that we will at least have the opportunity to vote on this matter before Christmas?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will understand the delicacy of any comment pre-empting the Queen's Speech; but I certainly do not wish to give him an assurance that the matter will not be discussed before Christmas.

Mr. David Winnick: Would it be possible for the Government to make a statement next week about their intentions regarding a Select Committee on Northern Ireland? Is the Leader of the House aware that anything that would further divide the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland would be extremely wrong—the more so bearing in mind the bloodshed that is now occurring daily in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Committee will not go ahead—although rumour has it that it was the subject of a deal made by the Prime Minister during the Maastricht debates.

Mr. Newton: The Government have made clear repeatedly that a Select Committee may be desirable in principle. However, that is a matter for the House. I have noted, as will the hon. Gentleman, that the Procedure Committee is re-examining the possible composition of such a Select Committee and, of course, the Government will consider any report which the Procedure Committee produces.

Mr. Roger Knapman: Will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on equal opportunities for men and women, following the disgraceful situation that has arisen following the shadow Cabinet elections? Is it fair that hon. Ladies such as those for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon) and for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) should be consigned to the Back Benches for ever because of the sexist prejudices of their male colleagues?

Mr. Newton: That question sounds as if it were calculated to get me to inflame someone about something. I will observe, as others have done, that there is some irony in the fact that a system which was supposed to produce fewer Scots and more women has succeeded in producing exactly the reverse. Whether those who brought forward that proposition had in mind the hon. Ladies mentioned by my hon. Friend is not for me to say. I will say to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) that all of us were pleased that she did not have to get involved in the elections.

Mr. Paddy Tipping: In the light of comments made by the Prime Minister in the House earlier this week, will there be time for an urgent statement—I am sure that a statement will come—on whether there will be a full and independent inquiry into the Bilsthorpe colliery disaster?

Mr. Newton: That matter was covered at some length, both in the statement last week on the coal industry and in the debate yesterday. I do not wish to add to what was said on those occasions.

Mr. Bob Cryer: The usual procedure for Prorogation is that Black Rod comes down to prorogue Parliament. Instead of that, can the House have a resolution, subject to debate, about the length of time between Prorogation and the new Session of Parliament which is disgracefully lengthy? All hon. Members could contribute in the usual way to such a debate, and the wide-ranging concerns about the Child Support Agency could be raised. The concerns primarily involve a change of policy from pursuing irresponsible fathers who are not paying maintenance to pursuing the easy targets of fathers who are responsible, who are accepting court decisions and who are making maintenance payments. Those fathers are now subject to an unprecedented, vicious and unscrupulous attack, which will wrest every last penny from them and prejudice their new families.

Mr. Newton: If I may leave aside the first part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the forthcoming recess, or whatever one wants to call it, I will take note of the second part of his remarks along with those words uttered earlier by other hon. Members on the same subject.

Mr. Thomas Graham: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Scotland or Secretary of State for

Health to make a statement regarding a rumour in my constituency that I have been trying to check out? The rumour is that one of the local hospitals is burning toxic waste commercially. Will the Government state whether there is any truth in the rumour that other hospitals in the country—either trust or national health service—are using their incinerators to burn waste commercially?

Mr. Newton: I am not in a position to provide immediate substantive comment on that matter, as was the case with an earlier question. I will bring the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. John Gunnell: When will the House have the promised debate and statement on the Minerals Planning Guidance No. 3 and its revision?

Mr. Newton: I cannot at present give the hon. Gentleman an exact date, but I will look into the matter for him.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Scrutiny by hon. Members of the actions by Ministers at meetings of the EC Council of Ministers is very important. Ministers must act on occasion upon the decisions of Standing Committee A and Standing Committee B, and upon decisions which have been passed by the House. For that hon. Members require information on what is happening in the Council of Ministers meetings.
At the Edinburgh summit of Heads of State it was said that a record of the votes at Council of Ministers meetings would become available, and some figures were starting to come through in parliamentary answers. There has now been a decision by the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Council of Ministers that, in future, votes will be published only if a resolution has been tabled about a vote and if that resolution is not then blocked by a majority of the Ministers present.
Is not that a serious situation, and should not there be a statement from the Prime Minister about how that can be done in line with the decision taken at the Edinburgh summit?

Mr. Newton: For the second time in the exchanges today, I will say that the sensible course is to draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be here next week to answer questions.

Opposition Day

20TH ALLOTTED DAY

Crime

Madam Speaker: I should tell the House that I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I beg to move,
That this House notes that the level of recorded crime has more than doubled since 1973, that only two per cent. of all crimes results in conviction and that the threat of punishment no longer constitutes a sufficient deterrent to offenders, and that amongst the young there is a growing experience of a culture of violence and drug use; condemns the allocation by Her Majesty's Government of only one quarter of one per cent. of the criminal justice budget of £8,770 million in 1991–92 to specific crime prevention measures; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to support, monitor and promote effective locally based preventative measures where they are required and to provide both resources and support to families and schools to educate young people in their personal duties to society in general.
The very purpose of a civil society is to protect the individuals within it from unrestrained and harmful behaviour—in other words, from crime. Britain today is falling very far short of that aim. The problem is neither new nor is it confined to this country. However, it is causing increasing anxiety and, in some quarters, a sense of despair and helplessness.
The purpose of the debate is to propose practical policies to tackle crime around which the House could unite. It is to offer hope when previous policies have only induced cynicism, and even despair. I will not linger on the well-known evidence that crime, and violent crime in particular, is a growing scourge. However, falling crime rates as the proper measure of a successful law and order policy is not working. The public will not accept from us the alibi that crime is rising elsewhere in other countries; nor will anxieties be allayed by the political competition for the title of "Official party of law and order".
Concern about crime will decline only when crime itself declines. This afternoon we heard from the Home Secretary about his proposals for police pay and responsibilities. It is always right to seek measures to increase the efficiency and the effectiveness of the police. I have been impressed by the evidence that police forces throughout the country have themselves been eager to innovate measures. For example, while the Home Office dithered, the Kent constabulary introduced an electronic fingerprint recognition scheme which reduced by 75 per cent. the time it took an officer to put a name to a fingerprint. The Thames Valley constabulary did not wait while the Government deliberated on the future structure of the police. The Thames Valley force slimmed down its own middle ranks on an experimental basis.
I hope that the Home Secretary will do nothing to detract from the valuable and innovative experimentation by the police. The last thing that we want in this country is a structure imposed from the centre. The debate on efficiency has been badly skewed by Sir Patrick Sheehy, who has been seeking to import commercial irrelevancies into a discussion on efficiency.
Despite that, one fact stands out. The police service in Britain is more efficient today than it has ever been. Twice as many crimes are cleared up today as were cleared up 20 years ago. However, even the most efficient police service will not be able to deal conclusively with the crime problem on its own. Half of all crime is not even reported to the police, according to Home Office figures. Even a "Robocop", as seen in the recent science fiction film, which was programmed to shoot anyone who refused to obey its commands within 20 seconds would still require to be informed of the crimes. Tackling crime must be a matter for every citizen, every community and every public body.

Mr. Donald Anderson: On reflection, does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the claim that half the crimes committed are not reported is a little spurious? Almost certainly, those figures must include minimal crimes such as minor scratches on cars, theft of milk bottles or whatever, which the ordinary citizen would not feel it worth reporting. Therefore, the matter has to be put in a different perspective from that in which the hon. Gentleman puts it.

Mr. Maclennan: I do not agree. The one aspect of the Home Office that stands almost beyond criticism is the research capability of its research unit. The unit does not produce such figures and facts without a good deal of careful reflection. The figures have been subjected to academic scrutiny by many institutes of criminology throughout the country. They are the most reliable figures that we have.
I take it that the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) would not seek to diminish the importance of unreported or unrecorded crimes. It is a substantial problem and one of the matters which the police wish to have addressed.

Mr. Gary Streeter: I hope that the hon. Gentleman can explain something to me. He will probably agree with me that the increase in the use of drugs is one of the most significant causes of crime. Can he explain how the Liberal Democrat policy of legalising cannabis, which would put far more people in touch with the drugs culture, could assist us in reducing crime?

Mr. Maclennan: That policy is supported in parts of the Liberal party. I understand that the party in Scotland recommended it. I notice that several journals, including The Economist, have long advocated legalisation of cannabis. The subject is worthy of debate, but it is certainly not the official policy of the party of which I am a spokesman.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Before we lose sight of the issue of unreported crime, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will say what contribution he and his hon. Friends were making to the law and order debate in 1988 when they voted against legislation which gave the Attorney-General the ability to appeal against lenient sentences? Does he think that that sets a good example, or was it a good example of unreported crime?

Mr. Maclennan: Far from being unreported, the matter is recorded in Hansard. Thefreasons were well set out on that occasion.
The need for crime prevention is unarguable. I am glad to say that my party and its predecessor party has placed


the prevention of crime at the heart of the debate on law and order for almost a decade. We recommended neighbourhood watch, crime prevention panels and local authority action as long ago as 1985, when those ideas were popularly regarded as marginal to the problem of crime. Indeed, to some extent, Home Office Ministers regard them as marginal even today.
The marginality in the Government's attitude was demonstrated even this afternoon by the Home Secretary in his remarks on Sheehy. In the last paragraph of his statement, when he was speaking about the possible benefits that would flow from more efficient structures, he said:
That could mean more work on crime prevention.
That does not suggest that there is any serious commitment to use additional resources for what is plainly the most effective step that can be taken to tackle the problem.
I do not wish to be unfair to the Government. They have shown some recognition of the relevance and potential of crime prevention.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): I thought that I heard the hon. Gentleman say a moment ago that he was against greater centralisation. Surely, then, it is up to chief officers to decide how to deploy their resources.

Mr. Maclennan: I am sure that when the Minister speaks in the debate he will tell us what the Government are doing. It is my purpose to show that they should be doing substantially more. No doubt the police will think it appropriate to deploy their resources effectively in crime prevention. But the success of crime prevention schemes depends on pulling together private voluntary agencies, local authorities and the police, and on the Government monitoring the work, promoting best practice and putting money into schemes in which they have seen value in the past yet to which they now show less commitment than they should.
I take one example. The safer cities programme was initiated in 1988. The locally managed schemes have had a good and successful run. I am sorry to see them progressively strangled by lack of funds. We have been told that the projects are temporary. I have to tell the Minister that crime, and crime under Conservative Governments, is not temporary. The need for crime prevention does not lessen simply because the Home Office has decided not to invest in it any further.
I hope that the Minister will assure the House today that the safer cities programme will not only be continued indefinitely but be expanded. The Minister should not be too preoccupied with the balance sheet, because crime prevention is a blue-chip investment. The cost in policing, court time, legal aid and custodial and community sentencing incurred by a single crime far outweighs the cost of preventing that crime from occurring in the first place.
Despite initiatives such as the safer cities programme, the Government's commitment to crime prevention deserves only two cheers. Last year the Home Office spent £15.7 million on specific crime prevention measures out of a total criminal justice bill of some £8.7 billion. That imbalance reveals the Government's true priorities. Crime prevention remains at the bottom of the list. It is almost an afterthought.
Of course, crime prevention does not deliver the headlines that the Government wish to achieve. "Bang 'em up" is far more appealing than "Practical partnerships work".

Mr. Michael Stephen: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that some crimes cannot be prevented and some criminals cannot be deterred? We have to do something with that residue of hard-core criminals. I put it to him that the only way to deal effectively with them is, as he puts it, to "bang them up".

Mr. Maclennan: I agree with the hon. Gentleman without cavil or qualification, as I shall make plain.

Mr. John Sykes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maclennan: No. This is a short debate and I have already given way many times.
The Home Office's own research has estimated that prison sentencing would need to increase by 25 per cent. to reduce crime by about 1 per cent. The cost involved in building and maintaining the new prisons that would be needed is out of all proportion to their value. To my mind, the public get the biggest bang for their buck from crime prevention. It is preferable to ever greater expenditure on prisons which have little discernible effect on the actual levels of crime.

Mr. John Ward: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maclennan: I must make it plain to the hon. Gentleman and the House that I do not intend to give way again. This is a two-hour debate and it is a rare opportunity to discuss the issue. I do not wish to delay the House.
The Government give the appearance that they tailor their policy rather more to the needs of the party conference than to the needs of the public in general. Such an approach has the effect of moving the spotlight away from the practical measures which are needed, and which are open to every community, to curtail crime. One example will be well within the recollection of Conservative Members. The joyriders legislation was a crisis measure rushed through the House in a frenzy. It grabbed some headlines. In my discussions with the police they have told me that the legislation has been far from effective. I doubt whether a single joyrider has been deterred by it.
Crime Concern, a charitable body partly funded by the Home Office, has operated so-called motor projects for young people to divert them from joyriding and from crime. Crime Concern has claimed a 98 per cent. success rate in preventing joyriders from reoffending. The contrast between the two approaches of the Home Office—both are favoured by the Home Office—is striking.
I bow to no one in my determination to punish serious criminals with an appropriate time in prison. However, I will not be diverted from my belief that prevention is better and more reliable than cure. The Minister must accept the disproportion between the great costs and the small benefits of imprisoning even the most minor offenders. Is not it better and cheaper to keep people out when there are better ways to protect society from their crimes and, ideally, to prevent those crimes from being committed in the first place?

Mr. Nigel Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maclennan: I regret that the hon. Gentleman is deaf.
Two specific types of crime in respect of which crime prevention has an important role to play are domestic violence and racial violence. Some people believe that crime prevention is little more than an attempt to put locks on doors and seek to elevate that into great public service. I admit that it can sometimes look like that. However, even if that were true, it would not be wholly unacceptable. Good locks can prevent crime and leave households intact and the police free to do other things.
I believe that crime prevention has great relevance to violent crime. The degree of violence in our society has risen steadily over several decades. Every year we expect the level of violent crime to remain at best static; if it rises one year, we adjust ourselves to that level and expect it to do the same in future. As Edmund Burke once said,
Custom reconciles us to everything.
We reserve the harshest penalties and the most condemnation for violent offenders, and that is right. However, the existence of such penalties and the high clear-up rates associated with violent crimes do not appear to me—and, I suspect, to Conservative Members, some of whom have intervened today—to constitute a sufficient deterrent to potential offenders.
The commandment that is most observed in this matter is "Thou should not get caught." That is particularly true in cases of domestic violence. We have moved a long way with regard to our acceptance of the seriousness of domestic violence. Wife-beating remained legal until 100 years ago. However, we have not gone far enough. It may be a crime that takes place between intimates, but it is violence and it must be treated with the seriousness that it deserves.
Research conducted by a number of sources, most recently by Manchester university, revealed two significant facts about domestic and racial violence. The first was the extent to which they are under-reported. One in 35 domestic assaults and only six in 10 racial assaults are reported to the police; even fewer are recorded as crimes and investigated further.

Mr. Streeter: What is the hon. Gentleman's policy?

Mr. Maclennan: I am coming to that. I want the House to accept the fact that both domestic and racial attacks tend to be repeated within short periods. The majority of recorded offences are associated with relatively few victims and offenders. That is where prevention has a role.
The evidence suggests that once an offence is reported to the police, another is likely to follow soon after. Our responsibility is to break that pattern. The Government have failed in their duty to support the victims of domestic and racial violence. As long ago as 1975, a Select Committee recommended that there should be three times as many women's refuges in this country as there are today. That is a manifest failure of commitment.
The Law Society has drafted a Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill which would allow the courts to make an ex parte exclusion order against a violent partner or ex-partner if that is in the interests of the victim. The Government have not yet stated their position on that and

I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity of this debate to tell us the direction in which his mind is moving. The law needs to be amended.
The police have an immensely important part to play in preventing crimes of violence, as in other respects. The police have made considerable strides in that regard. For example, a police officer in south Yorkshire constructed on his kitchen table devices for recording attacks in the home on video and audio tape. Those devices are installed at the invitation of a victim where a repeat offence is expected. The victim feels more secure as a result of those devices and the police can gather valuable first-hand evidence. Devices like that, and the devices which were used to catch people who abused the owner of a Chinese takeaway on an almost nightly basis, are immensely important to help prevent crimes of violence and other crimes.
As I want to draw my remarks to a conclusion fairly speedily, I want now to consider racial violence. The Government have attempted a partnership approach. I believe that that is the key to preventing racial violence. There must be a good working relationship of mutual support and interest between the vulnerable communities, the police and the local authorities. The law provides for the eviction of council and housing association tenants who racially harass or attack their neighbours. However, it provides for such offences to be dealt with without reference to race as an aggravating factor. The law is not being enforced to its full potential because we do not have a systematic approach to the problem.
I put it to the Minister that there should be specialist officers in police stations with the sole responsibility for collating the details of every suspected racial incident in an area and for analysing those details and recommending a strategy to the senior commanding officer. That would enable the police to identify immediately the patterns of offending and allow them and the local community to be prepared for the next incident.
I am aware that many hon. Members want to participate in this short debate and that there are many aspects of the problems and possibilities in relation to crime prevention that I cannot possibly cover. If my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) is fortunate enough to catch your eye at the end of the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will address a number of the specific issues referred to in the motion on which I have not touched.
We all recognise that there are no easy answers to crime. The problem is complex and varied, and so must be our policies to tackle it. A policy of severe punishment has its place and is not incompatible with a policy of strong commitment to crime prevention; indeed, the one can enhance the other. However, we are in danger—this point was brought home to us in the Home Secretary's speech to the Conservative party conference—of moving towards a more unbalanced, single-track policy. Crime prevention is not an additional or optional add-on. It is a vital component of a successful law and order policy.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
commends the Government's determination to tackle crime through a broad range of measures aimed at preventing crime, punishing offenders and helping the victims of crime; recognises


that government support of crime prevention takes many forms, including support of the police and support through the programmes of several government departments; believes that the key to preventing crime lies in partnership between the police, other agencies and the public; and applauds the work being done by this Government to promote and support partnership at both local and national levels.
I welcome the opportunity of today's debate. There can be no doubt about the scale of the challenge that we face in tackling crime. Recorded crime has increased in every decade since the second world war. People are understandably concerned. That is why the Government's first duty is to protect the public and that is why law and order is at the top of our agenda.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) raised a number of points and I am pleased to say that I will be able to respond to several of them. However, I am bound to remind him that some of his statistics were wrong. The incidence of violent crime has remained at around 5 per cent. of the total of reported crimes for the best part of the past five years. I am sure that the House will recall that crimes involving firearms represent about one fifth of 1 per cent. of recorded crime.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland referred to sentencing. Sentencing must be a matter for the courts and the courts must decide whether a custodial sentence is appropriate. He also referred to racial violence. He will recall from our long debates earlier this year in Standing Committee on the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill that we agree that racial violence and racial prejudice are to be abhorred. However, I did not hear him say during those debates that it was important, as the Government believe it to be important, to maintain firm but fair immigration controls as a fundamental principle in ensuring good race relations in this country.
I cannot resist reminding the House that, in March, the hon. Gentleman issued a press release—he has claimed credit for his party on several crime prevention initiatives —about local authority crime prevention schemes. He also spoke of increased public awareness of crime prevention in Alnwick, but he omitted to mention that the lead in crime prevention in Alnwick came not from his party but from a £2.3 million Department of the Environment-funded renovation scheme.

Mr. Maclennan: I happen to have a copy of that press release with me. Nothing in it suggests that crime prevention schemes are being promulgated only by Liberal Democrat authorities. Happily, they are being pursued by several authorities in which the Liberal Democrats are represented. The impression was never given and it was certainly never intended that it was only Liberal Democrat authorities, although it is undoubtedly the case that they are taking a lead.

Mr. Wardle: The press release did not mention the Department of the Environment scheme, but the House will be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his clarification.
Last week, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) made a speech about law and order. That does not happen often, so I read his speech very carefully. It was flawed from start to finish. The right hon. Gentleman concluded that the criminal justice system was irrelevant in the fight against crime. That must be nonsense.
We need action to make sure that all elements of the criminal justice system work better. That is why the Government are taking action to prevent crime, to do all that we can to help the police to catch more criminals—too

many criminals are never caught—to ensure that fewer criminals are cautioned—too many criminals are cautioned and not prosecuted—to ensure that criminals are tried fairly and quickly, and to ensure that those who are found guilty are punished appropriately. Those are exactly the powers that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is addressing. That is why we are taking action across the board. We intend to tilt the balance against the criminal and in favour of the victim.

Mr. Sykes: Bearing in mind my hon. Friend's comments about the Liberal Democrats, he might be interested to hear of a feature that I received from the Scarborough district housing forum. The politically correct and liberal tendency is well represented. The forum recently heard a lecture from the probation service and the minutes state:
The Probation Service explained that the Scarborough area was piloting a scheme for their clients which could hopefully be extended to include other vulnerable people.
Does my hon. Friend agree that many people in Scarborough would regard such people not as vulnerable, but, rather, the kind of people who would take a crowbar to an old lady's head in order to rob her of all her savings and all her life's treasures?

Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to make it clear that society should unequivocally condemn criminals. I am sure that he will agree that much hard work is done by many honourable members of the probation service.
The right hon. Member for Yeovil does not seem to understand that an efficient and effective system of criminal justice with tough punishments forms an essential part of preventing crime. No other Government have taken crime prevention more seriously. Listening to the Opposition parties and to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, one would think that they have been pushing us all the way. The hon. Gentleman talked of Crime Concern as though his party should claim credit for it. He talked in the same vein about neighbourhood watch. Of course, the Government are the largest funder of Crime Concern. The Government set up Crime Concern and they continue to support it in that fashion. The Government backed the police with neighbourhood watch. When neighbourhood watch was set up, some Labour councils refused to co-operate. There are now 115,000 neighbourhood watch schemes throughout the country. We have had car crime prevention year, the safer cities programme, parish constables and the creation of the National Board for Crime Prevention. All those ideas were developed and taken forward by the Government.
The most telling feature of the hon. Gentleman's interest in crime prevention has been his party's voting record on law and order legislation. They voted against the. Public Order Act 1986, against the Criminal Justice Act 1988, and against the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. I believe that I am right in saying that, this year, only seven members of his party voted for the renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act.

Ms Liz Lynne: The Minister mentioned safer cities projects. Will he guarantee that no further funds will be cut from safer cities projects?

Mr. Wardle: The hon. Lady should realise—it is already in the public domain—that, in addition to the 20 safer cities projects that have already been run, we intend


to have a further 40 safer cities projects. It was made clear from the outset that those safer cities projects would run and that they would prompt and stimulate local investment, local partnerships and local involvement and would then move on. The hon. Lady talks as though one should continue to repeat the same investment. Does she expect us, having put locks on doors on an estate one year, to spend taxpayer's money, undo those locks and put them back again? I shall return to safer cities in a moment.
Partnership is fundamental to successful crime prevention. It involves all of us—that is, the Government, the police, local authorities, local groups, local businesses and the man or woman in the street—in the fight against crime. We all have a part to play in preventing crime from happening in the first place.

Mr. Ward: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in respect of crime prevention, it is what people do rather than what they say that matters? Does my hon. Friend agree also that television surveillance has a useful part to play in crime prevention? In Poole, backed by the police, the Conservative group wants television surveillance of an area in town to protect the lives and the property of people in Poole high street. The Liberal Democrat council is more concerned with a potential interference with civil liberties. It is ignoring the civil liberties of those who want to go about their work and their play in the centre of the town in safety. Is not that hypocrisy?

Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and Conservative councillors in his constituency are right. Throughout the country there is a growing number of examples of success with closed circuit television. That form of surveillance adds security and a feeling of safety and it also adds to watchfulness against crime.
I believe that the first duty of any Government is to protect the public and maintain law and order and to provide the police and the courts with the powers that they need to catch and punish offenders so that the public are protected. The Government have acted decisively to respond to concern about crime. This month, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary announced a comprehensive programme of action to crack down on crime and the criminal. As the House will be aware, he announced 27 new measures covering all aspects of the fight against crime.

Mr. Alun Michael: If the Minister is going to refer to the empty promises that were made by the Home Secretary in his speech to the Conservative party conference, I should be grateful if he would give simple answers to questions which have not been answered. When will he keep those promises? How much money will be provided? Where is the detail? The Minister has answered none of those questions because the matter has not been thought out.

Mr. Wardle: The hon. Gentleman knows that we are approaching prorogation. He understands parliamentary procedure, he knows that the House will reconvene, he knows that there will be a state opening of Parliament, and he knows that there will be a Queen's Speech. My advice to him is to listen carefully to the Queen's Speech. No doubt he will learn more to his and to the country's advantage.
I shall briefly remind the House of some of the measures that we have announced.

Mr. Maclennan: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Wardle: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make a little progress, but of course I give way. He knows that my good will is reasonably limitless. I shall give way to him once more and I hope that his colleagues will allow me to make progress.

Mr. Maclennan: I apprehended that the Minister was about to leave the subject of crime prevention. Does he really think that it is defensible that the Government should spend on specific crime prevention measures a mere £15.2 million out of a total criminal justice budget of £8.6 billion?

Mr. Wardle: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has raised that matter. I can assure him that I intend to explode that myth shortly—nothing will give me greater satisfaction.
I have referred to further powers for the police and the courts to tackle offending on bail. We will impose tougher sentences for offenders. We will double the maximum sentence in young offenders institutions to two years. New guidelines will be provided to tighten the use of cautioning by the police. There will be acceptance of all the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, which was directed at the Government to help victims of crime. We will abolish the right of silence. The Government are determined to help the police in their job of catching criminals.
This afternoon, the House heard my right hon. and learned Friend announce his decisions on the Sheehy report —a report to the Government, not a report by the Government. Those decisions are a demonstration of the Government's commitment to support the police in their vital work.
But that is by no means all that we are doing. As my right hon. and learned Friend announced this month, we are scrapping the restrictions on the use of DNA samples and reducing the paperwork burden on the police to free more officers for operational duty. The police need have no doubts about the continuing commitment of the Government to support their work.
We are determined to make life tougher for persistent offenders and hardened criminals. We make absolutely no apology for that. But it has been suggested by Liberal Democrat Members that, in doing so, we are neglecting or abandoning efforts to prevent crime and tackle criminality at its roots. Nothing could be further from the truth. We simply do not agree that being tough on crime and preventing crime through partnership must in some way be regarded as mutually exclusive alternatives. They are not. The Government remain totally committed to crime prevention and partnership.
Before I outline the action that we are taking, I shall deal with the point raised by the hon. Gentleman. It is completely misleading to suggest that less than one quarter of 1 per cent. of expenditure on the criminal justice system goes on crime prevention. In 1991–92 public expenditure on the criminal justice system in England and Wales was £8,700 million. During that year, over £5,400 million of that sum—62 per cent.—was expenditure on the police.


What are the core functions of the police? We should look at the Police Service Statement of Common Purpose and Values. I quote the opening sentence:
The purpose of the Police Service is to uphold the law fairly and firmly; to prevent crime; to pursue and bring to justice those who break the law;
The prevention of crime is one of the key functions of the police.
In 1992–93, estimated expenditure on the police increased to £5,900 million. That is an increase in real terms of 83 per cent. since 1978–79. Therefore, it is nonsense to suggest that Government spending on crime prevention is insignificant. Nor does it make sense to look only at expenditure on the criminal justice system. We have estimated separately that other expenditure on crime prevention across Government Departments was £200 million in 1992–93, compared with £167 million in the previous year. That is an increase of about 20 per cent.
If we look at Government spending on the inner cities on a wider front, we find that, taken together, expenditure on the Government's city challenge and urban programmes will increase from £319 million in 1992–93 to £408 million in the current financial year. Those programmes include crime prevention and community safety elements and provide significant additional benefits for inner city residents.
So the repeated suggestion by Liberal Democrat Members that Government expenditure on crime prevention amounts to less than £20 million is both inaccurate and misleading. It is irresponsible and alarmist to understate the real extent of Government expenditure on crime prevention. In doing so, hon. Members merely underline the paucity of their contribution to the challenge of tackling crime.
I shall return to the subject of partnership and crime prevention. Our partnership strategy has many strands to it.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Wardle: I shall give way in a moment. The hon. Gentleman will understand if I wish to make some progress and not detain the House.
Our partnership strategy has a number of clear aims: it must provide a range of opportunities for the public actively to support the police; it must seek to get agencies working together at the local level; and it must maintain partnership at the national level. The Government are taking effective action in all those areas. More members of the public are willing to help the police to tackle crime. But, of course, some are able to do more than others. That is why we have developed a range of opportunities for individuals who want to do their bit.
The special constabulary has a long tradition of giving valuable public service. Being a special constable is the finest way in which ordinary people can help the police to crack crime. It forges a link between the police arid the community. It creates an additional resource which can allow the greater experience and training of regular officers to be put to the best use.
The police reform White Paper recommended that the deployment of special constables should focus on tasks such as crime prevention and beat and patrol duties. In that way, they can contribute positively to reducing the fear and incidence of crime. That is why we are aiming to recruit an extra 10,000 special constables by 1996.
Another way in which we hope to see special constables contribute is by volunteering to take part in the parish constable initiative. That initiative offers the local community the opportunity to have a real stake, if it wants it, in local arrangements for keeping the peace. We ran a competition to generate suggestions from parishes about what powers and responsibilities such a figure should have and we have based the pilot schemes on the two most common blueprints that emerged. Whether a local community ends up with a parish special constable or a parish warden, the process will involve a real partnership with the police.
I come to neighbourhood watch to which the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland alluded in his speech.

Mr. Stephen: Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to victim support schemes? Does he agree that a high proportion of the vast amount of money that is used to help organisations whose principal object is to help criminals should be shifted to victim support schemes?

Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will be aware that expenditure on victim support has increased to £8.7 million in the current year, so the emphasis is exactly as he described, and that victim support is represented on the National Board for Crime Prevention. Incidentally, that board has been looking at Home Office studies on repeat victimisation, among other things.
I return to neighbourhood watch. As I said earlier, we now have 115,000 schemes across the country covering 5 million households. That is a considerable achievement.
The second limb of our strategy on partnership is co-operation between agencies at the local level. On that, the way has been shown by our safer cities projects. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) is interested in safer cities. I am sorry that she is at least temporarily not in her place. I am sure that she will return.
Safer cities is a successful programme. It has had many positive results in combating crime and the fear of it. Because of time constraints, I shall give only two examples. In Leicester, domestic burglaries in the South Highfields area were reduced by 62 per cent. as a result of security improvements. In Sunderland, over 3,000 elderly people who had security lights and locks fitted felt much safer in their homes. To revert to my earlier point, what should we do? Should we start other schemes, as we plan to do, or take off the locks and put them on again? I think that hon. Members understand the point.
The safer cities programme has brought together local authorities, the police, probation, business and the voluntary sector in an effective partnership to fight crime. It has tackled local issues that are of real concern to local people. Since 1988, it has sponsored more than 3,300 individual crime prevention schemes with Home Office grant amounting to more than £20 million. By next March, 16 of the 20 current projects will have been running for more than four years. They are to be succeeded by 40 new projects which will be set up in new areas so that other parts of the country can benefit.
Safer cities is not the only Government contribution to local partnership. Another example appeared this month, when the Home Office published a "Practical Guide to Crime Prevention for Local Partnerships". As I have said,


the Departments throughout Whitehall make their contribution to crime prevention through their local programmes.
We also have to demonstrate a commitment to crime prevention through national partnership, which is undertaken by the Ministerial Group on Crime Prevention and by the recently formed National Board for Crime Prevention. We have recruited talented people to the national board to identify best practice and to produce creative, innovative but above all practical ideas to prevent crime. The board is concentrating in the first instance on retail crime, on youth and crime and on car crime.
The Opposition motion also referred to families and schools. There is strong evidence that children's experience of family life and their relationship with their parents play a significant role in whether they offend. Strong relationships between parents and children, with good communication, firm, affectionate and consistent discipline, an interest in the children's activities and schooling and effective supervision, can all increase the chance that children will grow up to respect other people and the law, and be able to withstand the temptations of crime.
Some parents need support in the vital task of bringing up their children to respect the law and the Government welcome and encourage that kind of support. We are also anxious to ensure that schools provide a clear moral framework in which pupils can be prepared for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life. Many schools run programmes which help to provide that sort of preparation.
The Department of Education's grant for the education support and training programme is supporting expenditure of about £10 million on schemes to reduce truancy, and of £4 million on the youth action scheme which involves youth work with youngsters who are at risk in 29 local education authority areas. The Department of the Environment's urban programme supports many projects in its 57 inner city target areas which are aimed at diverting known offenders and young people who are at risk of offending. I shall allude once again to the Home Office safer cities projects. Among many of those projects we are funding schemes associated with truancy and crime and with providing summer activities for young people to keep them off the streets and out of trouble.
Crime and drugs, as the House is aware, are often related. There is a great deal of public concern about drug misuse. Parents and young people are worried about the risks to people who take drugs. The Government put a high priority on action to tackle drugs misuse. There is an extensive programme of action against drugs. Our laws against drug traffickers are among the toughest in the world and they are made still tougher by the Criminal Justice Act. There are policies designed to give effective treatment to those who take drugs and a wide range of action is in hand to stop others at risk—especially young people—from becoming involved with drugs in the first place. The Home Office drugs prevention initiative is working with several local communities to mobilise activity to prevent drugs misuse. The police service is often involved, not only to enforce the laws against supply and possession of drugs or to deal with the network of dealers, but to increase awareness of the dangers of drugs.
In conclusion, I hope that the House will now appreciate the nonsense of the suggestion that less than £20 million is spent on crime prevention. I hope that the House will appreciate the comprehensive extent of the Government's contribution to crime prevention and their fight against crime. The Government are determined to crack down on crime and criminals, but we are equally determined to do all that we can to prevent crime in the first place. The Opposition motion failed to acknowledge the large amount of work that is being done, with full Government support, throughout the country.

Mr. Alun Michael: I am delighted to speak in a debate about crime and crime prevention. It is interesting to notice the way in which the words of my hon. Friend the Member Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) caught the mood of the country in the past year. When he called for the Government to be tough on crime and on the causes of crime, he went to the heart of the subject that we are debating. I only wish that the Government would catch up and start to take responsibility for their mistakes and failures.

Mr. Nicholls: rose—

Mr. Michael: Will the hon. Gentleman be patient for a moment and allow me to reach the first comma in my first sentence before I give way?
I only wish that the Government would start to take responsibility for their failure to tackle and prevent crime during the past 14 years.

Mr. Nicholls: If the hon. Member for Sedgefield has caught the mood of the country, why has not he caught the mood of his own parliamentary party? While the hon. Gentleman is savouring what I might be alluding to, would he care to look behind him?

Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman should be well aware of the interest that my hon. Friend has taken. He is responding to many aspects of the Sheehy report. Today's debate is a minor debate initiated by a minority party. My hon. Friends have been working in their communities, with their local police, with the people who are affected by crime and with their local authorities. I only wish that the same could be said of Conservative Members, because we have been confronting the problem of crime while the Minister has only offered us what the Home Secretary does: rhetoric.
To hear the Minister's complacency today, one would think that a party other than the Conservative party had been running the country for the past 14 years. If the Minister has been so successful, why do the, facts demonstrate 14 years of failure? He talks about protecting the public; it is at the top of his agenda. It is far too low on his list of priorities.
I was especially surprised that the Minister was so dismissive of the problem of violent crime. He said that violent crime had stayed at only 5 per cent. of total crime. As it was 5 per cent. of a bigger bulk of crime, violent crime increased by 126 per cent. since 1979, when the Conservatives came to office. The Minister should not dismiss that so lightly.
The bulk of crimes that are recorded by the police in England and Wales has increased by more than 121 per


cent. since 1979. That is bad enough. Burglary of homes has increased by more than 180 per cent. Theft from vehicles has increased by 243 per cent.
Only one crime in 50 now leads to a punishment in court. Is the Minister proud of that record?

Mr. Stephen: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the main cause of crime today is the breakdown of people's respect for each other, which took root in the 1960s, and that our failure to combat crime has been a result of our failure to resist libertarian attitudes towards crime? Does he agree that if either of the two socialist parties had been in power for the past 14 years, the resistance to those attitudes would have been even weaker?

Mr. Michael: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to the words of the Home Secretary before last, the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), he would have heard him confess:
We have created a me society.
Yes; it is selfishness, but under the Conservative Government that selfishness has not only flourished but been encouraged. If the Home Secretary before last could confess that, I wish that the hon. Gentleman and the Minister would be equally generous. I wish that they would consider the terrible consequences of their mismanagement of the country and consider what is happening in the criminal justice system.
The Minister said that one of the most important crime prevention measures was the capture and punishment of the offender. The number of cases that came to the magistrates court decreased from 1.57 million in 1988–89 to 1.53 million last year, despite a 50 per cent. increase in crime; is that a sign of success? The number of cases that are withdrawn or dismissed at magistrates courts has increased by 50 per cent. since 1987; is that a cause for celebration? The number of cases that come to trial at the Crown court has decreased by 8,000 since 1986, in a period of rising crime. The number of cases that were discontinued by the Crown Prosecution Service before they came to court has increased by 78 per cent. since 1987–88. Those are the facts—on the very ground that the Minister chooses—which show that the Government have failed to tackle crime.
Despite the promise that some of us wrung out of the Home Secretary in February 1991, of secure places to end the scandal of youngsters being held in adult, prison accommodation, not one additional secure place for juvenile offenders has been provided during that time. Not only that, the statistics from the National Bed Bureau in Leeds, which co-ordinates requests from local authorities for secure places to house young offenders, show that during the past year more than 400 requests for such places had to be turned down. That does not count the requests which were not made because people knew what the answer would be. That is the extent of the Government's failure on the grounds that the Minister chooses to count as important.
The Labour party's approach is to be tough on crime and tough on its causes. When people persist in crime, they must be punished. Projects based on partnership, where the police, local authorities and the public work together to fight crime, have been shown to work. I see that the Minister agrees with me about that.
From the Government, we need the leadership to put practical measures into effect throughout the country. Labour has offered that leadership, yet the Home Secretary

failed to implement the Home Office's report on crime prevention—the Morgan report—which offered a blueprint for putting partnership into operation nationwide.
The Minister may come to the House and talk of partnership, but the Home Secretary and the Government have consistently thrown sensible plans into the waste paper basket.

Mr. Nigel Evans: On the issue of the punishment fitting the crime, what is the hon. Gentleman's view of young offenders being taken abroad to France or Portugal, using charge payers' money, and re-offending when they come back into the community?

Mr. Michael: Programmes for young offenders should be tough, should confront their behaviour and should construct the opportunity for youngsters to come back into the community less likely to re-offend because they have been offered an element of constructive hope and discipline during their time in either secure or local authority accommodation.
Before the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) asked such a facile question he should have found out more about the details of schemes supported by the Government and the Home Office. The Labour party has made constructive proposals, which have been voted down by the Government—[Interruption.] Conservative Members should listen if they are interested in such issues—I believe that they are not. They voted down our proposals to cut offending while on bail, through bail enforcement and support schemes. They voted down the expansion of witness and victim support schemes. They voted down making the Crown Prosecution Service consult victims before dropping or reducing charges. They voted down faster action when youngsters start to get into trouble—with the cautioning plus schemes among others. They voted down speeding up the criminal justice system, to get quicker court decisions on persistent young offenders. And they voted down placing a statutory responsibility on local authorities to work with the police and local communities to fight crime. That is the Government's record—failure on the grounds that the Minister selected, and voting down the Opposition's positive proposals.
Recently, the Home Secretary said that thousands of people live in fear of the burglar coming back and that too many people are imprisoned in their own homes, afraid to go out in case they are attacked or burgled. That is the legacy of 14 years of Tory rule.—[Interruption.] I know that Conservative Members want to gossip among themselves because they do not take these issues seriously. There has been a 120 per cent. increase in recorded crime, but all that they can do is gossip and laugh during this debate.

Mrs. Angela Browning: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that people are afraid to go out, especially in urban areas. In the city of Exeter, which is adjacent to my constituency, people are afraid to go into the shopping areas in the city centre. For seven years the crime prevention panel in Exeter has been trying to persuade Labour members of Exeter city council to agree to closed circuit television cameras, but in the interests of individual and civil liberties they have opposed them.

Mr. Michael: The hon. Lady should check her facts. She should also consider that Labour councillors often take the initiative, but that the finance is voted down by the


Conservatives. I have found that out from my visits to Labour authorities throughout the country. The hon. Lady should be impressed by the initiatives that Labour councillors and Labour Members of Parliament have taken to tackle the problems of crime. If she is so interested in the subject, why did she join her colleagues in the Lobby to vote down the sensible proposals to which I referred?
The Minister also referred to racially motivated violence and domestic violence. It made a sorry scene when Conservative Members laughed and mocked the references that have been made to those serious problems. Parliament has a duty to send out the sort of clear message that my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield has provided.

Mr. Oliver Heald: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Michael: If the hon. Gentleman will listen to at least a sentence he might understand some of my arguments. I realise that Conservative Members have been pushed into the Chamber to try to disrupt this debate. I am sure that that is a matter of regret to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), who opened it. I understand their embarrassment—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. It is about time that the House settled down.

Mr. Michael: Hon. Members will be aware that we have a limited amount of time for this debate. I am trying to offer a serious solution to the problem of racially motivated violence. Parliament has a duty to send out the sort of clear message that was provided by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield and Conservative Members should realise that. I ask the Minister to take back this message and to accept the plea for legislation to bear down on racially motivated attacks.
If the Minister is so proud of partnership measures, such as the safer cities programme, why did his Department send out a letter on 28 May to instruct co-ordinators of those projects not to provide information to a Member of Parliament who was trying to find out about their success and their future funding—open government, my foot! The Minister should be ashamed about that. Despite that instruction, we were able to study the progress of the safer cities programme, which confirmed something that the Labour party has been saying for years: if we put in a little extra money to enable a partnership to develop in inner cities, we will be able to reduce crime.
So the project proved a point that we have been making to the Minister and his predecessors for some years. What has happened, however? The Minister boasted that he has doubled the number of safer city programmes. He knows full well that the original 16 projects are running out of cash this financial year and that finance is not available locally to pick up the burden. He knows that the new projects will not have sufficient finances. They are talking about an amount that is only 30 per cent. of the money provided to the original projects, which will also have fewer staff and have not been given a time scale. That is not doubling the programme, but cutting it. It is a cut masquerading as an increase.
Should the Minister or the Home Secretary have wished to do so, they had the opportunity to answer parliamentary questions this week to show their commitment to the development of the safer cities programmes. They failed.

Mr. Heald: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. If we are to have a partnership against crime, is it not time that the Labour party stopped making party political points and joined the Government in their fight against crime? Is it not time that they stopped voting against every measure that the Government introduce, supported us on the prevention of terrorism and said in strong words that the ringleaders of crime must be punished, and punished hard?

Mr. Michael: Earlier in this debate the hon. Gentleman was giggling and gossiping with his colleagues when I listed the measures that he, his hon. Friends and Ministers voted down. They voted down a series of measures such as those intended to be tough on bail bandits.

Mr. Heald: rose—

Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman is not serious. If he were he would have joined us in the Lobby on that occasion—[Interruption.]

Mr. Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That vote was before I came to the House. I was certainly not involved in it. However, I served on the Committee of the Criminal Justice Bill with the hon. Gentleman and heard the Labour party's namby-pamby posturing. It is time that Labour joined the Government and got tough on crime.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair and the hon. Gentleman should know that.

Mr. Michael: Not only is it not a point of order, but it is not true. The hon. Gentleman was a Member in June and July this year and I believe that he was in attendance. I am sure that he will correct me if I am wrong, but the voting record in Hansard shows that he voted down the measures that we proposed and showed his lack of commitment to tough action on bail bandits. The Labour party has done precisely what he asked—consistently put forward constructive proposals to deal with crime and the causes of crime week in and week out in this Chamber and outside, and Ministers have not accepted our advice or suggestions.
The Minister also suggested that drugs are a high priority. He should explain how the Government's irresponsible actions have helped the fight against drugs and drug-related crime. The Government have cut drugs education, voted down the use of money from drug trafficking to cut drug use, and cut cash and facilities for the rehabilitation of drug offenders.
Victims should be at the heart of the criminal justice system. Earlier this year we pointed out that money was needed if victim support schemes were to be developed around the country. The reply that I received from the Minister yesterday dealt a blow to any hope that he would act on his fine words by supporting victim support schemes. At this stage in the financial year just £200,000 would allow the expansion of those schemes to continue, but he has not come up with the money. Three vital services could be complete throughout England and Wales in two years if the Home Secretary came up with the extra £2.3 million for the next financial year. Those are: the


basic service of victim support; upgrading services across the country so that they can deal with victims and those affected by serious crimes like rape and murder; and providing witness support schemes in each Crown court, because the system now only covers 50 per cent. of courts.
So many prosecutions fail because of the lack of witnesses or because witnesses are afraid to come forward and give evidence. Our criminal justice system must make it easier for witnesses to come forward and help to bring criminals to justice. That is not a soft option, but an essential part of being tough on crime.
In June the Home Secretary failed to respond to our plea. This week he gave the answer again: no change in the planning figure; no extra money. So the Minister must not just talk nicely about helping victims but must come up with the goods if he really believes what he says. I regret that we have had too many strong words and not enough action by the Minister and the Government to deal with those problems.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: What is my hon. Friend's response to the demands voiced in a number of English tabloids that anonymity should be removed from complainants in rape and sexual assault cases? Does he agree that, were the protection of anonymity removed from women in such cases, fewer women would be willing to report such dreadful crimes?

Mr. Michael: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. There are grave dangers that one case may lead to ill-thought-out changes in the law. The present law is correcting a problem that has existed for many years—the discouragement of many women from reporting rape cases. I hope that the Minister agrees that that approach should be maintained. It is another matter that illustrates the fact that we need to get the law right to encourage people to be confident that the criminal justice system will help them in their difficulties.
The criminal justice system deals with only 2 per cent. of offences. The whole of our society should be geared to preventing and reducing crime. The Government have not realised or accepted the extent to which they have encouraged the general problem in recent years. They have encouraged the failure of family life, selfishness and a great deal of lawlessness in our society. Ministers should face up to that.
May I summarise briefly our approach because I have taken many interventions, which inevitably takes time. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield said, we are determined to be tough on crime and the causes of crime. Unlike the Conservative party, we are determined not to be trapped into the nonsensical polarisation in which it is suggested that one party believes in punishment and the other in prevention. We believe in both and that a balance must be struck, but we also believe that it makes no sense for society to fail to prevent youngsters and adults from reaching the point where they must be locked up. As the Minister acknowledges, although not in legislation, a great deal can be done, but only if the causes are understood. Those include the direct causes that may be rooted in family or damaging experiences for the individual and the indirect causes, such as the environment—the street or estate—which appear to reward delinquency.
In getting those things right the criminal justice system, in its wider sense, must give the right message to those who

offend, especially youngsters when they first get involved in crime. If our own youngsters commit an offence or do something wrong we correct them and, if necessary, punish them. But we do it today, not tomorrow, next week, or in six or nine months' time, as so often happens within our criminal justice system. The quicker the intervention, the more logical it is, the more it relates directly to the event, and the less the need to rant, rave or punish. Moreover, it has a better effect on future behaviour.
That is why it is so important that, in those aspects of dealing with young people and those who start to be involved in offending, and in the health of our communities, which has an influence on crime, the Government should take more action and recognise the interrelationship between education and crime. For instance, 50 per cent. of truants but only 16 per cent. of non-truants offend. The fragmentation of the education system is the Government's responsibility and Ministers should face up to that.
I therefore call on the Minister, in responding to this debate, to recognise the Government's failings and the need for the criminal justice system, in its wider sense, in the courts and outside, to be fast, firm, fair and effective. The tough words are no use unless we have those positive actions. We need prevention as well as action after crime has been committed.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) said that the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) had caught the mood of the nation. He certainly has not caught the mood of his side of the House because there is no one here. Normally, when such a remark is made, as it was by one of my hon. Friends, a Labour Member goes out of the Chamber and brings hon. Members in from the Tea Room. Clearly, that could not be done because hon. Members are not even in the Tea Room.

Mr. Michael: The hon. and learned Gentleman is well aware of the announcement that we heard today and the degree to which my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield must respond to it. I presume that that is why the hon. arid learned Gentleman was absent from the Chamber for a considerable part of the earlier debate.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I was not absent for more than five minutes, but that is not the point. The hon. Member for Sedgefield has not even inspired his party with the mood of the need for law and order.
We have just heard a brave but impertinent speech from the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, bearing in mind his party's history on law and order.
This is the first time that I have ever seen the Liberal Democrats present in a law and order debate, except for the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). When they say that they are the party of law and order, it is interesting to note that they supported Labour against the Conservative Government in the Public Order Act 1986, when we sought to deal with street disorder; in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, when we sought to strengthen police powers on stop and search; and in the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, when we tried to introduce tough measures to stop the abuse of illegal immigrants.
Goodness knows what they got up to in Tower Hamlets, but I am sure that their racial activity in that area did not


calm law and order. The idea that the Liberal Democrat party is the party of law and order is as laughable as the suggestion by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth that the hon. Member for Sedgefield captured the mood of the nation. The mood of the nation shows concern about the high level of crime, but there are misconceptions about the issue and the debate is an opportunity to explain some of them.
The level of crime is high in this country, but it is probably higher in most other countries in Europe and the civilised west. Britain is still one of the safest nations in which to walk the streets. Per head of population, we have half the number of murders in France. People are half as likely to be violently or sexually assaulted in this country as they are in Norway or Australia.
Recently, a delegation from the Home Affairs Select Committee went to the United States—one of its distinguished members, the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), is present—for advice on how best to deal with our hardcore of 300 to 400 persistent juvenile offenders. The Americans asked, "In which town or city are the 300 or 400 to be found?" The delegation replied that the figure referred to persistent juvenile offenders in the whole country. "You must be joking," the Americans replied, "we have that number in every town and city in the United States."
I do not for one moment suggest that we should not be working with all our might to reduce the high level of crime in this country. However, we should bear in mind not only, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, that only 5 per cent. of all our crime is violent but that the incidence of crime here is not as high as in other countries. We should also consider the fact that everybody now has telephones; there are 30,000 more policemen on the beat; there are 115,000 neighbourhood watch schemes, in which people look out for criminal offences; one cannot make an insurance claim unless the crime is first reported to the police. In addition, women now find it more acceptable to complain about sexual harassment and assault to the police, who are friendlier—as are the courts, and the judicial and criminal justice system. Those factors mean that a significant part of the apparent increase in crime is due to increased reporting.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: The hon. and learned Gentleman is experienced in the subject and has introduced an interesting note into the debate. Did he contemplate making a speech on similar terms to the Conservative party conference?

Sir Ivan Lawrence: The speeches that were made at the Conservative party conference were much better than anything that I could make and attracted the massive support of the British people. If the Liberal party's debates on prostitution had received the same support from the public as those at the Conservative party conference, the Liberals would be overjoyed.
I do not want to waste time on the absurd suggestion that the Government have been doing nothing about lawlessness as I know other hon. Members wish to speak. My hon. Friend the Minister set out a long list, not only of actions that have been taken by the Government, but of the achievements that have resulted. I shall give two examples of those achievements. There was a time when there was a

massive incidence of crime on London transport. When one used the underground, one could not be sure that one would not be mugged. We debated the subject in the Chamber. That crime has practically been stopped as a result of Conservative Government measures.
There was a time when we always complained about telephone kiosks being vandalised and the fact that we could never make a telephone call because telephone boxes were always full up, filthy or unusable. Now we can happily make telephone calls from public kiosks, which brings a great deal of credit not only to the Government but to the industries that have proliferated under a Conservative regime. There have been decisive improvements, apart from the statistical improvements listed by my hon. Friend the Minister.
Other hon. Members have mentioned my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary's 27 excellent pledges for action to tighten further the various existing measures to get to grips with the high crime rate. In the dying moments of my speech, I should like to draw attention to issues that will still require action. My right hon. and learned Friend must consider the necessary action in more depth.
Identity cards would undoubtedly help to reduce crime. That instrument has been staring us in the face for years and we have ignored it. Now that it is possible to see the great savings that could be made through the reduction of social security fraud and people realise that nearly everybody already has some sort of identity card, it might be possible to persuade the public to accept identity cards. That would substantially reduce not only social security fraud but all types of crime, particularly terrorism.
Two days ago, members of the Select Committee on Home Affairs were in Manchester. The Select Committee is conducting an inquiry into computer pornography. Appalling possibilities arise from our young children being confined to their rooms and watching computer video display units. They do not even have to have satellite television or video films, but can receive the most appalling and repulsive filth down the telephone line. I think that all members of the Select Committee, whatever their party, were appalled at the prospect. Something must be done about that problem. We must also do something about pornography generally, which is beginning to envelop our children. It is one thing for adults to have the freedom to get up to what they like in private; however, we are talking about children, young people, the next generation—the future of this country—who must be protected.
Television violence is linked to the problem. We keep saying that something must be done about it, but actually do nothing. The Select Committee on Home Affairs went to the United States earlier this year during its inquiry into domestic violence. One of our interlocutors said that, in her assessment, the American child attending school for the first time had already seen more than 2,000 murders on his television at home. Such viewing brainwashes a child to accept the most repulsive violence.
It is not enough to ask television companies not to broadcast violence until after 9 pm or even 10 pm. In today's society children stay up late and, if they know that there is to be a programme that they want to see, they will stay up late to watch it—heaven help the parent who tries to stop that happening. Postive action must be taken. If we have to legislate against the television companies to stop


them showing such violence when children can watch television, the Government must seriously consider that alternative.

Mr. Stephen: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that when I complained to the Broadcasting Standards Council on behalf of my constituents about a particularly vile programme that had been broadcast on the public television network, I was told that the content was justified by its context? I responded by saying that if the network made programmes about foulmouthed people, the content would always be justified by the context. Is my hon. and learned Friend satisfied with the job being done by the Broadcasting Standards Council?

Sir Ivan Lawrence: No, I am not. We must look at the problem and take action. I see that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that it is a serious issue which must be addressed.
On the issue of drugs, in Manchester the Select Committee on Home Affairs looked at racial attacks—a serious and worrying problem. We must take action to stop it. It was interesting that we were told by the Manchester police that there were 300,000 criminal incidents last year, of which 400 involved racial attacks and half—150,000 —were drug related. We are about to be overwhelmed—if we have not already been—by the problem of drugs; it has to be dealt with, and not by distinguished members of the judiciary suggesting legalising or licensing drugs, either. If we legalise cannabis, we will just whet the appetites of children for more and more hard drugs, and create more crime.

Mrs. Browning: It has already been mentioned that the Liberal Democrat party's Scottish conference voted to legalise the possession of cannabis—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may laugh, but it was made clear to me only a few months ago by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) that any resolution passed by Liberal Democrat conferences is official policy, whereas what appears in consultation documents is not.
Is it not true that the young people who purchase cannabis in the street buy it from the very people who will also supply them with crack, cocaine and all the other hard drugs?

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I agree. I must remind the House that the police have been active in this matter, as have Customs and Excise officials. The number of seizures rose from 200 in 1987 to 1,005 last year, and it continues to rise. We must direct more of our law enforcement agencies to the detection and prevention of drug trafficking. The courts must impose more savage sentences, too.

Mr. Thomas Graham: I fully agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman about the courts. In my constituency, seven men were arrested for drug dealing, yet the courts let them off scot free. Thousands of man hours had been spent trying to catch those folk, and we managed to catch them —but the court sent them out again, and now they are back dealing in drugs.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: If we can achieve all-party support for strengthening the deterrents, this debate will have achieved a great deal.
Removing the right to silence will not in itself prevent a great deal more crime, but it will reassure everyone that

the criminal justice system is working. It will also reassure the police who will know, when they arrest criminals, that there is a reasonable chance of conviction in a court of law. They will know that it is worth doing what our police forces ought to do to bring people to justice. That will help to restore their morale.
I deplore the intemperate, over-the-top statement made today by the president of the Law Society. He seems to be quite unaware of the fact that the overwhelming majority of judges are in favour of allowing the prosecution and the judges to comment on a failure to give an explanation when an explanation would be reasonably called for. The vast majority of the British people think likewise.
It is a pity when some of our leading judicial personages make remarks that sound like they are saying that prison does not work or deter, so let us not bother about prisons. No one who has anything to do with the criminal justice system can believe for a moment that prison is not a deterrent to a large number of people. The longer a sentence, the more a deterrent it is likely to be, quite apart from the obvious fact that removing from society a burglar who would otherwise commit 13 burglaries in a year—that can be multiplied by 10,000—represents a great decrease in the amount of crime that will take place.
More attention must be paid not to well-meaning judges, however distinguished, but to the whole judiciary and the whole legal profession, not to mention police officers and all who are concerned from day to day with crime. They all believe that one of the most effective ways of preventing crime is deterrence. Everyone knows that I am in favour of the restoration of capital punishment; it would do more than anything else to prevent violent crime. I accept that such restoration is unlikely, but for goodness sake let us build up a system of deterrents—in line with what the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) wants for drug traffickers—so that the message will go out from this place that we expect our judges to impose heavy deterrent sentences on the worst offenders.
By no stretch of the imagination could it seriously be said that the Government are doing nothing about crime. The public will be reassured by my hon. Friend the Minister's speech today, and they will be in no doubt that this party intends to continue to be what it always has been, the party of law and order.

Mrs. Diana Maddock: Politics is about people. It is not an exact science; unpredictable events take place and they can bring about great changes. One such event was the sad death at a relatively early age of my predecessor, Robert Adley. For Parliament, that has meant the loss of one of its more colourful Members, respected and admired on both sides of the House. For his wife and sons, it has meant the loss of a loved husband and father.
Robert Adley was a Back Bencher, but I believe that he was better known than many of our junior Ministers. Once he took up a cause, he gave it his all. He opposed the Government on the poll tax and on the privatisation of hits great love, the railways. When he died, he was the Chairman of the Transport Select Committee, and he worked tirelessly on a report that gained all-party support.
Robert Adley stood up for what he believed in. He was also a first-class constituency Member. He enjoyed overwhelming support ever since he was first elected as


Member for Christchurch and Lymington in 1972. He continued to represent Christchurch after the 1982 boundary changes until his sad and untimely death.
Robert once said of himself:
I don't take myself or life too seriously. I wouldn't mind appearing on 'Spitting Image' as long as I was portrayed wearing a train guard's hat and smoking my pipe.
Recent events have led to a great deal of publicity for Christchurch, and many people will have gained the impression that my constituency is all coastal, with beautiful beaches, a magnificent harbour, an ancient priory church and a marvellous bowling green reminiscent of a previous age—not to mention a population all over 60.
Some of those impressions are true, which is probably why tourism is one of the main industries in my constituency and why so many people have chosen to move to the area. Behind that image, however, the reality is a little different. The constituency stretches north away from the coast to include the communities of Ferndown, West Moors and Verwood. There are the villages of Burton and Hurn; there is part of the beautiful Avon valley; and there is also Bournemouth international airport. Twelve per cent. of the constituency is Forestry Commission land. Local people use the area for recreation, and they want to keep access to those forests.
There are also many young people in the constituency. There are many people with young families, attracted to the area in the boom years. Many of them work in high-tech, high-skilled defence and aviation-related industries. But there are problems—including problems with schools, homes, jobs and travel. The children of Dorset are not getting a fair deal. Hampshire children just a few miles up the road receive on average £88 per pupil per year more in Government grant than do the children of Dorset. I hope that the Chancellor will redress that difference in next year's financial settlement for Dorset. The local citizens advice bureaux are dealing with more and more mortgage repossessions, and other families cannot move because of their negative equity. Meanwhile, our housing waiting lists are longer than ever.
Unemployment in my constituency has trebled in the past two years. The biggest commercial letting in Christchurch this year was to the Government, doubling the size of the jobcentre. Many of the jobs that we have lost are in the defence and defence-related industries.
There are many carers in my constituency, and many of them are elderly women who need support as they try to look after their elderly partners, many of whom have been dismissed from hospital far too early to make room for others. Here, too, I hope that we shall get a better settlement for Dorset from the Chancellor next year.
Rail services are now non-existent in the northern part of my constituency and buses are also rare. Recently, the train service to Christchurch was cut. Many of my constituents rely on such services to get to hospitals in Southampton, Poole and Portsmouth, and many more travel to schools and colleges by train.
Those are just some of the problems that I highlighted in my by-election campaign, and I intend to continue to highlight them and to fight for a fair deal for the people of Christchurch and east Dorset—the people who have given me support not only at my election but since that time whenever I have met them.
I am fairly sure that the Government did not intend the timing of the by-election to be helpful to me, but in the almost three months before I signed the book in the House, I had a chance to meet many of my constituents. Therefore, I am in no doubt that the two main concerns in people's minds in Christchurch are the proposed imposition of VAT on domestic fuel and the fear of crime. There is absolutely no doubt that many elderly people and others on low incomes—often the people who most need heat—will be badly hit if the Government go ahead with their VAT plans. My constituents are angry, and they will be greatly disappointed if the Government fail to listen to the view that they expressed at the ballot box.
In addition, for more and more people, the real fear of crime is destroying their quality of life. There must be action to prevent crime, and people must be able to feel safe in their homes and on their streets. Business men and women must feel that they can earn a living without their premises being burgled almost weekly, for that is the reality for some in my constituency.
I am particularly pleased to have been given the opportunity to make my maiden speech in this Liberal Democrat-proposed debate on crime prevention. Much is being done in my constituency to cut crime through local crime prevention schemes. In Highcliffe, the local home beat officer has worked with local people to set up home watch schemes. He has worked with shopkeepers in the village to set up the Highcliffe traders shop watch scheme, which has been established to help local shop workers work together in an effort to deter the criminal element and prevent crimes such as shoplifting, fraud and theft.
A similar scheme has been instigated in Christchurch. I was in my constituency yesterday and I understand that good progress is being made on that. People in the north of my constituency in Verwood have also been active in crime prevention and have won awards. The East Dorset district crime prevention panel has been most effective in cutting car park crime. If such schemes are to continue to prosper, and if the police and the community are to come together, to get other schemes off the ground, they will need Government support and recognition. Above all, they will need the tools to do the job.
Last year in my county of Dorset, the chief constable was given no extra officers when he requested them from the Home Secretary. This year, he estimates that he will need 97 more officers to do the job properly, but so far all that he has had is the Sheehy report which he estimates would, in its original form, have cut his estimates by 48. I look forward to hearing in some detail from the Home Secretary exactly where the 3,000 extra officers that he spoke about will come from.
That has not been all, because the Home Secretary's White Paper proposes to remove many of the elected members on our police authorities—500 throughout Britain. How can our police be responsive to local needs when their hands are tied at every turn? I hope that the Home Secretary will listen to the police and will support them. I hope that he will listen to the thousands of my constituents who want more police on their streets to deter the criminals and make people feel safer. I trust that he will give the chief constable of Dorset the extra policemen we need and for which the chief constable has asked. I hope that the Home Secretary will support the local councils and community groups that are coming together with the police to put into effect practical measures that cut crime. I hope


that the Home Secretary will put crime prevention as high on his agenda as we put it on ours, and as high as my constituents put it.
In the definition of the police constable's duty from Robert Peel's time to the present day, prevention has always come before detection. We can prevent crime if we all work together—the community, the police, local councils and central Government. The people of Christchurch and east Dorset elected me because I listened and spoke up about those concerns and real problems. I intend to go on doing that. I have brought their message here and I hope that the Government will listen and will act accordingly.

Mr. Rupert Allason: I welcome the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) to the House. She succeeds a doughty campaigner and a greatly respected parliamentarian. Robert Adley was Chairman of the Select Committee and had an encyclopedic knowledge of the railways. He made consistently marvellous and independent contributions to our debates. I commend the hon. Lady on her eloquence and look forward to her future contributions. I hope that she will continue her predecessor's proud tradition of independence which ensured that the people of Dorset, and Christchurch in particular, were well represented in the House.
I draw the House's attention to early-day motion 2448 which was tabled by the Liberal Democrats. It was received with some astonishment in my constituency, and especially by the police, because it states:
That this House … notes in particular the reduction in the incidence of common crimes such as burglary and car theft of up to 80 per cent. at relatively little cost, such as those schemes operated by the Liberal Democrat-led authorities in Torbay, …
and it goes on to mention other places.
I have come across several examples of political opportunism, but that early-day motion takes the cake. Quite apart from the fact that it is sheer nonsense because crime in my constituency has not been reduced by 80 per cent.—I wish that it had been—the idea that it was reduced as a result of a Liberal Democrat initiative is absolute hogwash. There has been a considerable reduction in vandalism on council property in Torbay, but that is no thanks to the Liberal Democrats.
On the contrary, the one initiative in my constituency to prevent crime was the introduction of closed-circuit television. That was suggested by me in 1991, and at an emergency meeting of the council in June 1992 it was proposed that closed-circuit television should be introduced in car parks and other public areas in my constituency.
I took that initiative because of an incident of crowd disorder outside a nightclub. Because a video camera was situated outside the entrance to the nightclub, the police were able to identify the person responsible for starting the fight and arrest him. Using the video tape, they managed to get a conviction. I was impressed by that. The emergency meeting of Torbay borough council was initiated by the Conservative group, and it introduced the widespread use of surveillance cameras. Remarkably, that measure was opposed by the Liberal Democrats. Not only was it opposed by the Liberal Democrats, but, because they had control of the council, they actually defeated the motion and they are now taking the credit for introducing it.
I have come across a great deal of humbug in my time, but the proposition that 80 per cent. of common crime such as burglary and car theft has been eliminated caused derision in Paignton police station when I reported the text. It is certainly political opportunism.

Mr. Maclennan: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I am delighted to know of his interest in crime prevention. Will he give Torbay borough council credit for introducing the vandal report phone line and the security controls which have had a striking effect in reducing vandalism, as has been recognised in the community?

Mr. Allason: First, let me remind the hon. Gentleman that I have had a long involvement in crime prevention, including spending seven years as a Metropolitan police special constable, so I have a long interest in the subject. Secondly, in relation to the initiative taken by the police in my constituency in conjunction with Torbay borough council, it is quite true that damage caused to council property has been reduced from expenditure of around £180,000 to £70,000 or £80,000 last year. I welcome that. I am very much in favour of the prevention of crime, but I am not in favour of the political opportunism which stands in the hon. Gentleman's name.
Let me draw the House's attention to the safe resort scheme of which that security initiative was part. We hope and intend to show visitors to and residents of resorts around the country that the English seaside resort is a place to which people can bring their children, which tourists can visit in safety and where local residents do not have to be afraid when they leave their homes.
In my discussions with magistrates, the police and the probation service, one particular problem has been consistently highlighted. The greatest cause for concern is youth crime and young offenders. In Devon, there are only about 22 or 24 persistent young offenders who cause a large proportion of the crime, but the problem is greater in my constituency because some owners of residential homes have been importing problem children.
One of the difficulties that I would like the Minister to address when he replies to the debate is the problem of young offenders, which is exacerbated by the fact that, provided that children's homes have fewer than four residents, they do not need to be registered with the local authority.
A great deal of crime is committed in my constituency by very young offenders who take advantage of the current legislation which prevents them from being restrained if they are under 15. That means that on some occasions a youngster who has stolen a car and been arrested in pursuit by the police has been taken to the police station, released into the custody of the children's home, and then, within the same shift, has been caught for a second time later that evening committing another crime on the streets.
It is not unusual for some young offenders under the age of 15 to be responsible for up to 200 burglaries. Near one establishment, a local resident has had his car broken into 20 times and has now given up reporting the break-ins to the police.
Under current legislation, it is impossible for the owner of the home to restrain the children as standing in front of a child or in any way physically restraining a child could lead to a charge of assault. I hope that, when the Government take the initiative and introduce the new


secure high supervision accommodation that is so desperately needed to deal with young offenders, they will ensure that the new establishments are up and running by June.
Although the staff of the establishments are extremely dedicated and determined to solve the problems of the young people, they create a tremendous difficulty for local residents. I would like to manifest the anxiety that has been expressed by residents who live nearby.
All too often there has been a tendency to criticise local authorities and people who are responsible for young offenders. Let me give the House an example. I am aware of the case of a 10-year-old girl who was brought to my constituency for respite and emergency care in a children's home. The problem at the heart of her offences was that she was having problems with her pimp.
Another example involves a 14-year-old boy. I spent some time trying to sort out his problems. He has been shunted around the country by Avon social services who are only too pleased to get rid of him and park him on another authority. When I spoke to the youngster, I discovered that he had not seen a teacher or received any education for 10 months; he had been through half a dozen different children's homes and it was clear that Avon social services were not prepared to take responsibility for him. As a result of that, he was caught five times in one week driving up the motorway to Bristol in stolen cars.
Some of the youngsters have very severe problems. It is too glib and superficial to say that the fact that somebody is willing to take such a youngster sailing on the North sea for two or three weeks while he is on remand is an expensive solution that provides the youngster with a holiday. The residents who live next door to residential establishments are pleased that some young offenders are in the North sea and not in the locality.
There are no easy solutions, but the Government must establish facilities where young offenders can be supervised and those establishments must be running by June. There are few deterrents that work, but I believe that high supervision, high discipline and a high training regime will deter. It will also give youngsters who have had appalling lives and home backgrounds where nobody gives a damn about them some security and discipline.
In reality, the greatest deterrent is the certainty of being caught. That means involving the whole community. The fact that somebody driving off the M25 can see a woman being attacked and drive past and ignore her shows what is happening to our community. We need a greater willingness by all members of the community to get involved and to prevent crime instead of looking the other way.
Based on my own experience in the Metropolitan police special constabulary, let me say that it is a two-way street. The specials do a tremendous job; they also have a tremendous influence on the regulars. I welcome the Government's commitment to the special constabulary. It is not a cheap option, but the specials have a real contribution to make and in their local communities they can not only catch the criminals, but, more importantly, can prevent crime.
I am grateful for having had the opportunity to catch your eye this evening, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I hope that the Minister will take on board the central worry that, to

reduce crime, we have to tackle the problem of youth offenders, and to do that we must lock them up. We also have to ensure that the people who are responsible for those youngsters have the power to restrain them, instead of being in the ludicrous position that they could find themselves on assault charges simply by standing in their way as they leave home to commit a crime.

Mr. Donald Anderson: I will not intrude into the battle of Torbay, as to whether the Liberal Democrats or the Government are responsible for various welcome improvements. However, I will join the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) in paying a well justified tribute to the maiden speech by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock), which was felicitously drafted and delivered, and which paid a well-deserved and glowing tribute to her predecessor—a well-loved, well-respected hon. Member who is sorely missed. I only hope that the hon. Lady follows proudly and independently in the path that her predecessor trod and builds up the same reputation that he enjoyed.
Law and order and crime prevention are high on the agenda of our constituents, and Members of Parliament ignore that at their peril. Our constituents will not be impressed with the international comparisons drawn by the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence). They look at the situation in their own areas and see it worsening. I remind the hon. and learned Member that, in his own county of Staffordshire, since 1979 robberies have increased by 452 per cent., home burglaries by 356 per cent. and all offences by 164 per cent. Constituents will not be mollified or satisfied by comparisons or suggestions that matters are not as bad as they appear.
The reality for our constituents is that they are less secure in their person and in their homes. I do not pretend to claim that is due to any particular party or policy over the years. In 1979, the then respected Home Secretary claimed that the answer to crime, which would deliver the goods, was the short, sharp shock. Recently, the Home Affairs Select Committee received evidence from the Home Office showing in clear terms that the reconviction rate of offenders who went through that process, which was promised to deliver so much, was no different from that of offenders who underwent other forms of treatment. We should have a little humility and a greater willingness to consider the facts and learn wherever we can about good practice elsewhere.
Crime prevention can be viewed at various levels. Yesterday, the Lord Chief Justice said in another place that the greatest measure of crime prevention is detection and the greatest deterrent the prospect of detection. That should lead us to review police staffing, the tools available to the police, and the cries of chief constables throughout the country—as in Dorset—that they are not getting the officers that they seek.
Only yesterday, the chief constable of South Wales pointed out that there will have to be a reduction in the civilian force and the transfer from operational duties of uniformed officers to compensate. That police authority has a deficit of million, which suggests that the force is not being given the tools for the job. Later, I can show the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department a report


in my local newspaper revealing that South Wales' high-tech police forensic department is housed in a garden shed because of lack of resources.
I accept that demands are infinite and that we can seek only to meet an ever-growing menace to our society. Another change worth making is to the architecture and lighting of housing estates, as well as making cars more burglar-proof.
Members of the Home Affairs Select Committee were shocked at revelations made on their recent visit to Manchester of the increasing relationship between drugs and crime levels. What can be done to deal with that on both the supply and demand side? I checked some of the statistics given by Greater Manchester police with those provided by my local police force in South Wales. Although there is clearly much less of a menace from heroin in South Wales, some of the facts are just as relevant.
Greater Manchester police produced a document charting the period from 1981–91 in relation to the use of heroin and the increase in crime, which purports to show how the average daily intake of heroin by addicts is necessarily linked to the inexorable rise in crime. All of us should examine those figures and learn the necessary lessons from them.
The average addict uses 1 g of heroin per day at a cost of £80. The figure for South Wales is slightly more at about £90. Greater Manchester police calculated the cost to the public of passing on stolen goods, which is one of the main ways that addicts obtain the cash to feed their addiction. The average annual cost of heroin per addict is £29.200. Given that few people can obtain that sum legitimately, much of that money must come from crime.
Stolen goods are often sold on for as little as one tenth their real value. Greater Manchester police modestly suggest a crime potential factor of three to one. Therefore, the amount necessary to feed the individual's addiction is £87,600 per annum. The police multiplied that figure by the number of addicts in the Manchester area.
I accept that those calculations are somewhat crude, but they still produce the alarming result that the heroin-based crime potential for Greater Manchester alone amounts to more than £126 million per year. If one applies the same calculation to the country's other major drugs areas, one gains some idea of the linkage between crime and drugs. A chart supplied by Greater Manchester police shows a much closer correlation over the past decade between the rise in heroin addiction and that of crime.

Mr. Matthew Banks: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right to point to the dreadful nature of drug trafficking but does he agree that, contrary to his earlier remarks, the important factor is not detection but deterrence—action to deter drug trafficking or any other crime? Deterrence is far more important in preventing drug trafficking than detection.

Mr. Anderson: An attempt must be made to deal with the problem across the board. It must be dealt with on the supply side, through international co-operation on the part of all the relevant agencies; it must also be dealt with on the demand side, through proper education. Young people at school must be informed, and the police must be trained to handle the problem. Under the caution referral scheme operating in our own South Wales force, for instance, when

a young person holding a small amount of drugs for personal use is caught for the first time, he is normally referred to a relevant agency.
The Minister described a panoply of crime prevention measures introduced by the Government. Distressingly, when trying to demonstrate the amount that had been spent, he failed to take account of the substantial cut in the sum that local authorities can devote to youth work and to other projects that can have a huge impact on the fight against drugs.
I am president of a youth group in Wales. We have recently been hit by cuts in county expenditure, and that pattern is replicated in many other youth clubs and the like. This, too, is a crime prevention measure. I hope that the Government will not compartmentalise crime prevention, but will look at it in the round. I hope that they will think in terms of information in schools, educating and assisting the police and considering the problem of drunk driving —and, indeed, driving under the influence of drugs: it is possible for drugs to remain in the blood for up to a month.
The Government should accept that the problem is a major scourge of our community, which is corrupting our youth and is clearly behind much organised and individual crime. Unless and until we recognise and deal with the close correlation between drugs and crime, we shall not hit the right target.

Mrs. Angela Browning: I shall be brief, because I have been fortunate enough to make two interventions this afternoon.
My right hon. Friend the Minister referred to the strength of the partnership approach. As one who represents a rural constituency in Devon, I feel that, although crime problems in rural areas may be more dissipated, they are nevertheless important. Attention is; focused very much on set-piece schemes for the prevention of crime in urban areas, but nowadays rural areas—Devon in particular—are visited by people on one-day sorties from the cities, who travel down the motorways to commit crimes, especially crimes against property. The partnership approach initiated by my hon. Friend has been welcomed by all those involved, particularly crime prevention panels.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) implied that the absence of Labour Members was due to the fact that they were all busy fighting crime in their constituencies. He demanded to know what Conservative Members had been doing on that front. I can inform him —I am sorry that he is not present to hear my reply—that my constituency contains a special school for boys with problems similar to those identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason): children with severe emotional disturbances, who cannot be educated in normal schools.
My constituency had a serious crime problem. When all the interested parties joined forces—the schools, the police, local authorities, the probation service, the victim support schemes and myself—we managed to solve many of the problems that those difficult children caused. There has been a remarkable drop in the number of juvenile offences dealt with by the local magistrates court. It is not just a question of talking about certain measures; when the will exists to implement them they work very well, as we have seen in Devon.
I have been particularly pleased to be associated with the Exeter crime prevention panel, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) is a member, and to see such schemes put into practice in the rural areas and the surrounding towns and cities.
Much has been said about drug-related crime. I have already put on record my concern that the Liberal Democrats should take such a relaxed view of the legalisation of cannabis. I use the word "relaxed" deliberately: I understand that, when asked to support the Scottish Liberal Democrat conference decision, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) said that—although he did not support the move personally—he was "relaxed" about the idea. Let me make it clear that there is nothing relaxed about anyone who has ever come into contact with the victims of drug-related crime—or, for that matter, the young people to whom this wicked material is peddled by those who seek to make money and take advantage of it.
Crime is often glamourised. I wish my hon. Friend to pay particular attention—this, too, involves the Liberal Democrats—to those on the periphery of crime who benefit financially from it. Let me highlight the recently reported case of Miss Smith and Miss Cahill, who were released from a Thai gaol on compassionate grounds, having admitted their involvement in international drug running. On their return, it just so happened—supposedly—that they attempted to sell their story to the tabloid newspapers.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: For £100,000.

Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend is right. A judge put a stop to that, but the girls' solicitor nevertheless sought to sell the film rights to Hollywood. Such glamourisation of crime is entirely abhorrent to those who appreciate its seriousness.
In the film, the two young ladies were portrayed as victims. I submit that the victims of international drug running are those who end up buying such materials on the street. I note with regret that Mr. Jakobi, the solicitor who acted for the two young ladies and sought to glamourise them, had stood as an official candidate for the Liberal Democrats on no fewer than seven occasions. [Interruption.]

Mr. Paul Tyler: The hon. Lady is clearly being dictated to by the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman).

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Has the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning) given way?

Mrs. Browning: I have finished my speech.

Mr. David Alton: The House will wish me to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) for her generous tribute to the late Robert Adley. He would have especially approved of her references to local public transport services, particularly the railways. In calling for more police, my hon. Friend drew us back to the substance of the motion. Her maiden speech demonstrated that she will be an

articulate, competent and formidable Member of Parliament, and I know that we all wish to welcome her today.
I thank the Minister for indicating his willingness to keep his winding-up speech short to allow extra time for our own spokesman. He said that he felt that much of what the Opposition had said about law and order had been very negative. In his speech at Bournemouth—on virtually the same day as the Home Secretary's speech—my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) welcomed the burden of the Home Secretary's remarks. To follow up today's debate, we have already arranged a meeting with the right hon. and learned Gentleman at the Home Office in just 10 days' time. We shall then pursue a number of the points that we have raised, positively and constructively, in today's debate.
Towards the end of her speech, the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning) made a number of comments about drugs. Let me make it clear to her that—despite the canard that has been thrown around throughout the debate, suggesting that my party in some way supports a drugs policy, and although a motion to which I am totally opposed was passed by a group of people at a conference in Scotland—party policy within the United Kingdom is by no means in favour of drugs. In the past month, I personally published an article in our party newspaper setting out my opposition to the proposal. Let me also tell the hon. Lady —as a vice-chairman of the all-party drug abuse group —I do not take a relaxed view. I know from discussions with my right hon. Friend the leader of my party that he does not take a relaxed view about drugs. He said that he took a relaxed view about a motion on possession. Although I disagree with the thrust of that motion, let me make it clear that it does not commit the Liberal Democrats to support the availability of drugs. Anybody who misrepresents it in that way does a disservice to the cause of truth.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: In the extraordinary event that the leader of the Conservative party should say that he was relaxed about the legalisation of drugs, and then sought to avoid criticism by saying that that was said about a slightly different point, and anyway it occurred north of the border, is the hon. Gentleman saying that he would not raise the matter on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Alton: Considering some of the comments the Prime Minister has recently made about his own colleagues, I know that the word "relaxed" is not one that would be attributed to him. Certainly I can understand that the leader of the Conservative party would be extremely angry if his party were to support the proposition that drugs should be made widely available.
That is precisely the view of my right hon. Friend. Once again, the hon. Gentleman has deliberately misrepresented the position. What my right hon. Friend said was that he was relaxed about a motion on possession, but was strongly opposed to it. Let me make it clear that the motion does not represent the policy of our party.
The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) dealt with the question of drugs, along with the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), and touched on the issues of computer pornography and


television violence. Those are issues about which no one can be relaxed; they are at the heart of the cause of violence and the breakdown of law and order in the country today.
This timely debate has been held against a backdrop of some of the most violent events in living memory. The atrocities in Northern Ireland; the shooting dead of a community policeman in London; the subsequent murder, 24 hours later, of a man who was shot outside Shepherds Bush tube station, which was possibly related to drug offences; and the ramming of a woman's car on the M25 by armed highwaymen, who subsequently robbed her—all of those events graphically illustrate the violence of our times.
In Liverpool, preparations are in hand for the trial of those accused of murdering two-year-old James Bulger. The horror of that little boy's death caused us all to pause for a few moments to ask ourselves soul-searching questions about the health of our nation and the intensity of the culture of violence with which we now live.
Tragically, James Bulger's death was not unique. In every year since 1982, between 31 and 73 children under the age of five have been murdered. One in three people born in the 1950s has a criminal conviction by the age of 31 and one in 14 of those convictions is for a violent crime. In a letter dated 26 October, Mr. A. J. Butler, the director of personnel and services, in Her Majesty's prison service, said:
Excluding those committed in default of payment of a fine some 49 per cent. of the total sentenced male and female prison population, for whom an offence was recorded, were serving sentences for violence against the person, robbery or for a sexual offence on 30 June 1993.
The phenomenon of violence is not confined to any particular region of the country. Every day, regional or national newspapers reveal the same disturbing picture, with story after story about criminal or violent acts.
While the incidence of crime has been rising inexorably, the number of cases brought to court has fallen. In 1992, only 28 per cent. of all reported crimes were cleared up, with just 16 per cent. resulting in a charge or a caution. Even fewer cases were successfully prosecuted. That is a wholly unacceptable level of attrition in any criminal justice system. As my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) said, that raises disturbing questions about the value we receive for the money we spend on a criminal justice system that will cost £9 billion to administer this year.
In addition to the cost of adminstering the system, crime incurs other costs. The Home Office has estimated that propery worth £3 billion was stolen last year alone, and anyone who has had their homes burgled or ransacked, cars broken into or stolen, or been on the receiving end of violent crime, will know that as well as the financial calculations there are the unquantifiable emotional costs —the climate of fear and insecurity—and the fortress mentality that has led us to spend £1.6 billion a year on security measures to defend ourselves in our homes and businesses.
The political response is divided between knee-jerk reactions—which often reach a crescendo at well known seaside resorts during the party conference season—and hand-wringing defeatism that there is nothing we can do. Since 1979, Parliament has passed 64 measures to tackle crime, but during that time crime has doubled. The Minister paraded some of those measures before us today and claimed that we did not support all of them, and yet the

Government are now bringing forward Bills to repeal many of the provisions of the laws that they have previously enacted.
Surely the experience of the past 14 years shows that feeble posturing and partisan rivalry must be replaced by a coherent strategy that will restore public confidence in our system of law and order. As we divide into a society of predators and victims, we must, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch said in her maiden speech, be prepared to listen to victims of crime, to people who live in fear of crime, to those responsible for young people, to those who fight crime and to those who deal with offenders.
Despite all-party attempts to establish a royal commission, along the lines suggested by the Chief Rabbi and the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, to look at the causes of violence in society, and despite the fact that more than 100 Members of Parliament, most of them Conservative Members, signed the all-party motion in support of that, the Government, sadly, rejected it. The Government should think again and respond to the public mood. They should look more deeply at the causes, especially given the terrible atrocities that are happening in the country day after day.

Mr. Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Alton: No, I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once.
Every citizen has a responsibility in the fight against crime. We need a much richer language than the language of rights, a language which also emphasises responsibility and duty. Ours is a nation where far too often selfishness is rewarded and responsibility is evaded. Crime breeds on a breakdown of personal responsibility and it is nurtured by our culture of violence.
The hon. and learned Member for Burton quite rightly said that television brings images of violence into our living rooms. When murder and mugging is dressed up as entertainment, is it any wonder that people cannot distinguish between right and wrong? Earlier this year we were invited by the makers of the BBC's tale of everyday life in a hospital, "Casualty", to relish the prospect of thugs overrunning the hospital to destroy it by arson. Just a week ago, Channel 4 rejected the regulator's criticism of an episode of "Brookside", which was shown on a Saturday afternoon, well before the so-called watershed, which featured an attacker brandishing a kitchen knife as he attacked his victim. The former chairman of the Broadcasting Standards Council, Lord Rees Mogg, said:
For the past 10 to 15 years film makers have been producing films which are ultra violent, exploiting violence of an extreme kind. The cumulative effect is antisocial.
Too often, the Home Office and television programme makers have argued that those links cannot be proven and that the power of television is in some way underestimated. Details from the Independent Television Authority show that £1.7 billion was spent in the past year on television advertising by people trying to sell their wares through the power and pressure of television. If people think it is worth their while spending money in that way because of the influence of television, surely we should not underestimate the effect that it can have in our home. The public are not in any doubt. The TV Timespublished a survey in April that showed that 59 per cent. of those interviewed felt that there were undoubted links between television and real-life violence. Eighty-five per cent. said that the


television companies are not careful enough in monitoring screen violence. In July, the new chairman of the BSC, Lady Elspeth Howe, confirmed that the number of complaints about violence from members of the public had trebled in the preceding 12 months.
Other disturbing aspects of the culture of violence include freer and easier access for young people to vicious video and computer material. I am especially glad that the hon. and learned Member for Burton said that the Home Affairs Select Committee is considering computer pornography and the submission made by Care about that issue. I hope that the Committee will take that subject seriously.
Added to the existing pornography that already portrays the violation, degradation and exploitation of women in such an unacceptable way, the increasing dependency on drugs of which we have heard so much in the debate, creates a climate of violence. Some neighbourhoods, as hon. Members who represent inner cities areas are all too aware, are awash with drugs, which are a powerful pressure for crime. People steal to pay the pusher and they steal from their own relatives and homes. As the hon. Member for Swansea, East said, drugs are one of the biggest reasons for increasing crime in many neighbourhoods and communities.
On Tuesday, Merseyside police seized a terrifying haul in an arms raid on a flat in Toxteth. Among the firearms seized were five semi-automatic machine guns and a revolver and a stash of ammunition was found. Some of the guns were fitted with silencers. Many attacks and robberies involve replica guns that are openly advertised and freely bought without a licence. A sub-postmaster or a cashier does not stop to ask if a gun is real or fake when it is pointed at them. Fake guns clearly need regulating. If it looks like a gun, it should be treated like one. Let us learn from the miserable experience of America where more than 1,000 murders, mostly involving guns, occurred in Los Angeles during the past year.
In Britain we need a common agenda to defeat lawlessness and to help us rediscover the intrinsic value of each person. The well-being of society should be judged more by the quality of human relationships than by material attainments; more by the richness of human lives than by the abundance of possessions. Our goal should be the realisation of human values and a strengthening of community life. We could pay for some of that by dedicating the £304 million paid in fines annually to the fight against crime. The money that is sequestrated from drug barons should be re-invested, especially to help the victims of drug abuse. Money should be used to establish crime prevention units in every locality and neighbourhood police stations should be re-opened. The removing of Dixon from the beat and the closure of Dock Green have been a calamity for many areas where people have lost the presence of local policemen who they knew so well. The money could be used to offer grants for burglar alarms and for security improvements for people who cannot afford to make their homes safe.

Mr. David Harris: rose—

Mr. Alton: May I conclude because time is against me? One in three people have a conviction for a crime by the age of 31 and one in 14 for violent crime, so we must

especially target the young. Forms of community service may rekindle the positive aspects of citizenship that disappeared with the abolition of national service. The media, which have a powerful influence on the young, must give the young more positive images which they can live up to. Simply building more prisons when a 25 per cent. increase in gaolings would cut crime by one per cent. only and playing party-political games while we spend over £9 billion a year to run our criminal justice system fails to address the fundamental problems of crime, is defeatist and a betrayal of the public's trust.
As with so many of the problems besetting our nation, the political will to deal with them is lacking in the House. That is why my right hon. and hon. Friends have felt the need to table the motion and I am happy to commend it to the House.

Mr. Charles Wardle: With the leave of the House, I should like to speak a second time.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) referred to the terrible murder in the past week of Police Constable Patrick Dunne in Clapham while on duty serving his community. I join him and, I am sure, all right hon. and hon. Members in paying tribute to PC Dunne and expressing condolences to his family.
I have undertaken to be brief and shall make three points. First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) on her eloquent speech and the powerful points that she made on behalf of her constituents. I welcome her to the House, and I enjoyed her generous tribute to her predecessor, Robert Adley, my late hon. Friend. I wish her every enjoyment of the parliamentary routine while she retains her seat.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) referred to the Morgan report. The Government welcome the report's emphasis on the partnership approach, but do not accept the recommendation that local authorities need a statutory responsibility for crime prevention.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) referred in a typically powerful speech to identity cards. A scheme to introduce ID cards is kept under regular review. The key concern is whether a compulsory scheme would bring significant benefits to the police in tackling crime.
A number of my hon. Friends have spoken with realism about the many challenges we face in the fight against crime and have offered encouragement and support for my right hon. and learned Friend's proposals for police reform and improvements to the criminal justice system. Some Opposition Members have bungled the arithmetic of crime prevention expenditure and have been less than convincing in their attempts to claim credit for a variety of local and regional crime prevention initiatives, many of which have been prompted either by Government expenditure or as a result of determined efforts by Conservative members of local authorities. Opposition Members will have every opportunity in the forthcoming Session to demonstrate their new-found sense of responsibility in supporting new Government legislation.
Success in the fight against crime is being achieved by the police and the public working in partnership at local level. Many Government iniatives point the way. Neighbourhood watch, many other watch schemes, safer


cities, parish constables, the national boards, coalitions against crime, Crime Concern and the crime prevention centre are all evidence of the Government's progress in a fight that calls for tough resolve and determination to protect the public, to safeguard victims and to hit criminals where it hurts. It is only the Government who display that resolve.
I urge the House to reject the motion and support the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Question put,That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided:Ayes 29, Noes 143.

Division No. 374]
[7.28 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Maclennan, Robert


Barnes, Harry
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Mahon, Alice


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Connarty, Michael
Rendel, David


Cryer, Bob
Salmond, Alex


Davidson, Ian
Skinner, Dennis


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Spearing, Nigel


Flynn, Paul
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Tyler, Paul


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Welsh, Andrew


Harvey, Nick



Johnston, Sir Russell
Tellers for the Ayes:


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Mr. Archy Kirkwood and


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Mr. Simon Hughes.


Lynne, Ms Liz



NOES


Alexander, Richard
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Amess, David
Colvin, Michael


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Congdon, David


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Conway, Derek


Ashby, David
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Cormack, Patrick


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Cran, James


Bates, Michael
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Beresford, Sir Paul
Devlin, Tim


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Booth, Hartley
Dover, Den


Boswell, Tim
Duncan, Alan


Bowis, John
Dykes, Hugh


Brandreth, Gyles
Elletson, Harold


Bright, Graham
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Fabricant, Michael


Burt, Alistair
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Butcher, John
Forman, Nigel


Butterfill, John
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Carttiss, Michael
French, Douglas


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Gallie, Phil


Clapplson, James
Gardiner, Sir George


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles





Gorst, John
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Rathbone, Tim


Hague, William
Richards, Rod


Hampson, Dr Keith
Robathan, Andrew


Hannam, Sir John
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Harris, David
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Hawksley, Warren
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Hayes, Jerry
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Heald, Oliver
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hendry, Charles
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Horam, John
Sims, Roger


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Speed, Sir Keith


Hunter, Andrew
Spencer, Sir Derek


Jenkin, Bernard
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Spink, Dr Robert


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Steen, Anthony


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Stephen, Michael


Key, Robert
Stern, Michael


Kilfedder, Sir James
Streeter, Gary


King, Rt Hon Tom
Sweeney, Walter


Kirkhope, Timothy
Sykes, John


Knapman, Roger
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Temple-Morris, Peter


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Thomason, Roy


Legg, Barry
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Lidington, David
Trend, Michael


Lightbown, David
Trotter, Neville


MacKay, Andrew
Twinn, Dr Ian


Maginnis, Ken
Viggers, Peter


Malone, Gerald
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Waller, Gary


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Whittingdale, John


Merchant, Piers
Widdecombe, Ann


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Willetts, David


Neubert, Sir Michael
Wood, Timothy


Nicholls, Patrick



Norris, Steve
Tellers for the Noes:


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Oppenheim, Phillip
Mr. James Arbuthnot.


Patnick, Irvine

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House commends the Government's determination to tackle crime through a broad range of measures aimed at preventing crime through a broad range of measures aimed at preventing crime, punishing offenders and helping the victims of crime; recognises that government support of crime prevention takes many forms, including support of the police and support through the programmes of several government departments, believes that the key to preventing crime lies in partnership between the police, other agencies and the public; and applauds the work being done by this Government to promote and support partnership at both local and national levels.

Cold Climate Allowance

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I beg to move,
That this House, recognising that widespread fuel poverty means many more people on low or fixed incomes have to choose between malnutrition or hypothermia and that excess deaths rise during the winter months, calls on Her Majesty's Government to institute forthwith a cold climate allowance payable to those on basic state benefits; believes this should be an automatic payment during 17 weeks from December to March in addition to severe weather payments and should also take account of prevailing climatic conditions throughout the United Kingdom; believes that energy efficiency is best created by a programme of house-building, house renovation and house improvement which would save lives, save energy and create employment; and rejects current proposed price mechanisms such as value-added tax on domestic fuel which will further penalise the most vulnerable and which are morally and politically unacceptable.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I have to tell the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mrs. Ewing: It is with a great sense of anger that yet again I rise in the House to talk about the issue of fuel poverty and the need for a cold climate allowance, and the implications of that for health, for welfare and, most important of all, for people themselves. In the motion, I am, above all, talking about people. This is not a pious or esoteric issue. It is not a philosophical debate; it is about the quality of life. It is a question of where legislators place their moral responsibility, and the value that we place on each individual human life.
My anger relates to the long neglect of the matter. When I was first elected to the House in 1974, when you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I were much younger—as were many other hon. Members—I was accused of scaremongering because I asked a series of parliamentary questions and made statements on the issue of cold-related deaths. Those accusations came from the then Labour Government and also from the official Opposition. Apparently it was not appropriate at that time to ask such questions.
Despite detailed questioning by myself and other hon. Members at that time, there was a refusal to recognise the extent of the problem about which we are still talking in 1993. For example, on 10 January 1978, the then Secretary of State for Social Services said:
hypothermia was mentioned on fewer than 600 death certificates in England and Wales."—[Official Report, 10 January 1978; Vol. 941, c. 1422.]
Subsequently, in an article in The Observer of 16 December 1979, and in other newspapers, the former junior Minister at the Department of Health and Social Security, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who has received notification of the fact that I will mention his name tonight, admitted to political pressures being exerted on him. Departmental officials ruled that it was important not to issue information in this politically sensitive area which might be misleading and which could certainly be used against the Government. The hon. Gentleman was advised that it was almost certain that any reply suggesting that large numbers of old people were suffering from hypothermia would be used to bring pressure on the Government to improve heating provisions for old people.
That was the attitude that prevailed at that time. It was much easier to say that hypothermia related to deaths caused only as a result of accidents in Scottish, Welsh or

English mountains. However, the reality, as we all know, is that the deaths of many of our old, our sick and our vulnerable are related to the extent of cold from which they suffer.
In an amended reply, the hon. Member for Oldham, West said that he was unable to give an estimate, but evidence from death certificates in England and Wales revealed that only 17 people died from hypothermia in 1974. He admitted subsequently that many people die from hypothermia, but that they are written off on their death certificates as heart attack victims.
It is my sincere hope that matters have moved on since then, both in the House and in our community as a whole. There is widespread interest and concern. I have stacks of files in my office—the equivalent of a mountain, so I have not brought all of them to the House—from various concerned organisations that represent the elderly, the disabled, health services and the Royal College of Nursing. They agree with us, some 20 years on, that there is a need to recognise the significance of cold as it relates to the welfare of our people.
I should also point out that the current Prime Minister, who in the 1970s and early 1980s acted as a junior Minister at the Department of Health and Social Security, recognised that the cost of fuel was relevant to those on low incomes. He said:
Fuel is clearly a basic necessity, especially for the elderly and the sick. I recognise the concern that is felt by many on low incomes when it comes to paying for fuel."—[Official Report, 16 December 1985; Vol. 89, c. 134.]
He went on to talk about the issue of excess deaths in our winter months. Later, he referred to
the excess number of winter deaths that have perplexed successive Governments for years …The real problem, then as now … is not hypothermia, but the additional deaths from all causes, particularly heart disease, strokes and chest infections, which tend to occur in winter. It is a long-standing problem that our excess winter mortality rate is higher than that in other countries with severe winters, such as the United States of America and Sweden."—[Official Report, 2 December 1986; Vol. 106, c. 834–35.]
The reality is that those excess winter deaths are still occurring. Here we are, looking forward to the millennium, another century, yet still the House and society as a whole are talking about people who will die because they are unable to heat their homes effectively and look after the welfare of their families.
According to Strathclyde Elderly Forum, every year between 3,000 and 5,000 Scots die from cold-related illnesses. Not all those people are aged or infirm. Let us take the years 1976 to 1984 and look beyond the boundaries of my country of Scotland at what happened elsewhere. The number of deaths in January in West Germany was 4 per cent. above the monthly average; in Sweden and Norway it was 7 per cent. above the monthly average; but in Scotland it was 16 per cent. above the average monthly rate. That shows quite clearly that we have still not remedied either the causes or the effects of fuel poverty in our nation. I must say to the Government —with sincerity and a great deal of passion because I regard this as a moral issue that is based on fundamental principles about people and their right to life—that unless the issue of fuel poverty is addressed effectively, we shall continue to have a situation whereby we have a Westminster euthanasia system for the most vulnerable in our society.
This is not an issue that pertains solely to Scotland, although I understand the situation there. I care about


deaths and deprivation wherever they occur. This is a United Kingdom issue which affects every constituency represented in the House.
A recent survey from the university of Oxford points out that, according to figures collated by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, for every 1 deg. C the temperature is colder than average over the four months of December to March, there will be an additional 8,000 deaths. That was quoted in a book by Curwen and Devis in 1988, and confirmed subsequently in February 1991 when two weeks of severe weather resulted in an additional 4,000 deaths. That is not a record in which any Government or legislator can have any pride whatever. The problem has received increasing attention recently because of our concern about the likelihood that VAT will be imposed on domestic fuels. The imposition of VAT on domestic energy will have the same effect as a drop in external temperature because it will mean that it will cost more to run a warm healthy home.
I ask hon. Members to accept that we have a moral responsibility not only as constituency Members of Parliament but as sons and daughters. I speak as the daughter of a woman who will be 82 next month and who lives alone and on a state benefit. I know what the real situation is: my mother has a caring family, but I know that when I walk out of her house she automatically turns off the central heating system. My brother has had the same experience. People want to organise their lives independently, but we have a moral responsibility to ensure that none of them suffer.

Mr. Phil Gallie: Will the hon. Lady concede that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has already pledged that he will protect those on state benefit? Does she agree that the people most likely to suffer from the impositions of VAT on domestic fuel will be those whose income is just above the level at which state benefit is payable—those who have provided for their future to a small extent and who therefore receive no additional help from the state? Will the hon. Lady comment on that?

Mrs. Ewing: I certainly do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman. Given that he has spoken with such vehemence, I hope that he will support us in the Lobby tonight and also vote against the likely Budget provisions, especially as the Chancellor said that he would prefer to move straight to 17.5 per cent., rather than the 8 per cent. that is to be imposed next year. People at the margins of state benefit—people who have saved for their old age, or people who have small occupational pensions, or widows receiving a small additional payment as a result of contributions made by their husband during his lifetime —are too vulnerable. At this stage, however, we have no idea what form of compensation the Government propose to introduce. We argue that we must have a clear automatic payment to ensure that the most vulnerable—those whom we can reach—are assisted in the coming winter months.
You will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that since 1984 Dr. Gordon Wilson and I have introduced no fewer than five cold climate allowance Bills, which have been objected to and disparaged in the House. They have met with no success because they have been opposed by those on the Government Benches. We are supposed to be a democracy. What sort of system is it that so readily rejects

the basic principles of care and humanity? I condemn the House and I condemn successive Governments for their inhumanity to humanity.
The Government amendment refers to improvements in cold weather payments, but in 1986 the Prime Minister—in those days, a junior Minister at what was then the Department of Health and Social Security—admitted:
Over the years the various systems for making payments has been contentious and unsuccessful. There is no dispute about that.
The then Minister went on:
That is why we have tried to introduce a system which makes sense, judged by three criteria.
What were those three criteria? The then Minister said:
First, there must be clear rules for help",
with
an objective test of …coldness as the basic qualifying rule.
He said that the intention was to avoid a system
which relies on local subjective judgments.
The severe weather payments scheme still relies on local subjective judgments. Look at what happened in the borders of Scotland last year. Temperatures taken at Eskdalemuir did not relate to other areas of the border because they were measured from Bulmer. Many people who were living in severe climatic conditions had no opportunity to claim severe weather payments.
The second criterion for which the right hon. Gentleman argued was "certainty and speed of response". He said:
Claimants must know quickly when a period of exceptionally cold weather has been declared and for how much they will qualify."—[Official Report, 2 December 1986; Vol. 106, c. 837.]
It is obvious to my constituents when weather conditions are severe; they do not need to walk outside with a thermometer to find out, and they do not need to rely on readings taken somewhere else. I represent the highest village in the highlands of Scotland, Tomintoul—a name that people recognise from weather forecasts and weather reports. People know when they are living in severe climatic conditions, yet many many of them do not qualify for severe weather payments.
The right hon. Gentleman then said that we must concentrate help on the groups on whom most concern about risks has focused—the elderly, the sick, the disabled and the very young. No one can disagree with that philosophy. But if that is the Government's philosophy, why do hon. Members still constantly receive in their mailbags correspondence from voluntary organisations representing those groups of people that expresses deep concern about the failure of successive Governments to recognise their needs? The elderly, sick and disabled and those who care for the very young are still being deprived of the finance necessary to heat their homes.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: The hon. Lady has referred to her constituents, who live hundreds of feet above sea level. Is she satisfied with the location of the local weather station?

Mrs. Ewing: No, indeed. I live in Lossiemouth, which is on the Moray firth. Anyone who lives on the coast knows that the cliamte is substantially warmer there than in the uplands, yet the measurements are taken from the same point. That shows how ludicrous is the system of measurement used to trigger the severe weather payments.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: On the subject of ludicrosity, if that is the correct word, can the hon. Lady imagine anything more ridiculous than asking


old people to work out the temperature, then work out whether they are cold, then whether they have been cold for five hours, then whether, because they have been cold for five hours and 10 minutes, they qualify to go to a bureaucratic office and fill in a claim form in the hope that they will eventually be reimbursed? Can the hon. Lady imagine anything more contrary to human nature?

Mrs. Ewing: I welcome the fact that the hon. and learned Gentleman has supported the motion in his comments. He and I yesterday attended a meeting about VAT on domestic fuel at which he made a similar point. I will come later in my remarks to the mechanisms for claiming. The hon. and learned Gentleman has emphasised the very fundamental point that there must be automatic payments, which must be readily available and which must not be on the basis of a reclaim involving endless bureaucratic form filling.
Way back in the 1980s the Prime Minister referred to the need for certainty. My argument revolves around precisely that need. I do not argue for the reclaim system to which the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) referred. We know that all people—in particular, people whose family includes a disabled member—look with dismay at the forms, which run to eight, 10 and sometimes 20 pages. They do not know how to fill them in. They do not always have family members who can help them to fill them in. They do not know when they are supposed to fill them in or to whom they are supposed to give them. Our social security system is so complex that many people do not claim that to which they are entitled.
We seek to ensure that there is certainty for everyone who needs assistance. We are proposing an automatic payment for 17 weeks from December to April, which are regarded as the months when climatic conditions are such that people need assistance with their heating. I do not believe that we must rely on the severe cold weather snaps which can exist anywhere within the United Kingdom. We must have an automatic payment system.
Any payment that is given should also take account of the prevailing climatic conditions within the United Kingdom. Since the Government began talking about the possible imposition of VAT on fuel, it has been interesting to see many of the reports which have emerged from organisations which are not politically involved, but which are concerned about the implications of the Budget for the people whom they serve.
In particular, I refer to the Gas Consumers Council which last week published substantial figures in Scotland on Sunday relating to the issue of VAT on domestic fuel. The council compared average heating costs and considered how VAT would affect them. It is perhaps right to look at gas for an example as the figures have come from the Gas Consumers Council. The effect of 17.5 per cent. on VAT in the south would increase average heating costs to £36.57. In Glasgow, average costs would increase to £43.75, while in Aberdeen the figure would increase to £47.42. In Lerwick in Shetland—the area from which the former Chancellor of the Exchequer comes—the figure would be as high as £81.77.
The figures are based on comparing large homes in different areas throughout the United Kingdom. That is why we believe that it is essential that any automatic

payment must take account of the prevailing weather and climatic conditions. It is not just when the snow falls or when there is a sudden drop in temperatures, and we all wake up in the morning and have to chip ice off the windows of our homes and cars. I am talking about the prevailing weather conditions. We must take account of dampness, of wind and of what happens generally in each area.
Other people have come up with different statistics contrasting different areas in the United Kingdom. For example, analysis undertaken by the Department of Energy and by other organisations has suggested that it costs as much as 35 per cent. more to heat a house in Glasgow to the same level as an identical house in Bristol. In places such as Aberdeen, the figures are obviously higher. The statistics have not been denied. Even Professor Marcus, formerly of the department of building and architecture at Strathclyde university, who many years ago drew attention to those aspects, has never had his figures challenged.
It should be evident to all hon. Members that the further north one travels in the United Kingdom, the colder and more severe the weather generally becomes. We should remember that the distance from Shetland to Southampton is roughly the same as it is from Southampton to Madrid. Can anyone deny that Madrid is generally much warmer than Southampton?
I wish to make clear that I do not want the severe weather payments to be replaced; they must and should remain. I am talking about an additional automatic payment which takes account of prevailing weather conditions.

Mr. Alan Duncan: Would the hon. Lady tell the House which areas of the United Kingdom should qualify for the automatic cold weather payment? Will she also say where the cut-off point would be and why?

Mrs. Ewing: The hon. Gentleman is fairly new to the House, but I do not mean that in a disparaging way. I would be happy to send him copies of the Bill, which clearly details each area of the United Kingdom and how those would be zoned. I will make a brief reference to that matter later in my speech.
I am not talking solely about my area, where of course I have concerns as the local representative. Those are concerns that all hon. Members share for the vulnerable in society throughout the United Kingdom. Other figures which support the contention for zoning in the United Kingdom come from the Meteorological Office. Those figures show that average temperatures in Scotland between November and December are consistently lower than in England and Wales. In November 1992, the average temperature was 6 deg C in Scotland compared with 7.9 deg C in England and Wales.
The official figures on deaths caused by hypothermia —the Prime Minister has admitted that they represent merely the tip of an iceberg—show that the levels are consistently higher in Scotland than in England and Wales. In 1991, 101 direct deaths from hypothermia were recorded in Scotland, compared with 534 in England and Wales, which means that one in six of the deaths from hypothermia were in Scotland. Strathclyde Elderly Forum recognises that between 3,000 and 5,000 cold-related


deaths occur in Scotland during the winter months. We must concentrate not just on hypothermia but on other cold-related diseases.
When the Minister responds, he will probably make great play of the fact that gas and electricity prices have apparently fallen. The Government choose to ignore the fact that consumption in Scotland is consistently higher because of our climate. For example, I visited Scottish Hydro-Electric last week and it points out that it has the lowest costs, but the highest consumption. It is also the most "green" of all the electricity companies, yet it is on our area that the blow of VAT will fall most heavily. The Government must look seriously at the matter. The northern Scotland electricity consumers committee pointed out in a recent report that
in the north of Scotland area, due to a more severe climate the requirement for heating is higher than elsewhere in Great Britain. This higher demand leads to higher fuel consumption.
There is a knock-on effect. People in the north of Scotland receive the same state benefits, but they have an automatic built-in necessity to spend extra to keep their homes warm.
The report from Sutherland Associates—I am sure that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) has also received a copy—compared heating costs for different parts of the United Kingdom and showed that levels of energy consumption were higher for Scotland than for the south-east of England. The report compared an average two-bedroom house in Scotland with an identical house in the south-east. In the south-east it took 9,500 kWh to ensure adequate heating levels, whereas in Scotland it took 11,100 kWh. That shows the additional requirements we have in Scotland, yet no concession whatever is made.
I could go on to give more statistics, but other hon. Members wish to speak in the debate. Our proposals for a cold climate allowance recognise that the elements are no respecters of national boundaries. It is not just people who live in Scotland who suffer the effects of cold weather.
The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) might listen at this point, as I outline our suggestions. We are proposing that there should be four zones within the United Kingdom, ranging from the north of Scotland to the south of England. Zone 1 would cover southern England, where there would be no additional cold climate allowance because of the prevailing conditions. That does not rule out severe weather payments, because I accept that Devon can have horrendous cold snaps with snow, ice and frost while the sun may be shining in Lossiemouth. We are not proposing that severe weather payments be replaced, but instead are proposing an automatic payment.
Zone 2 would cover central England and an extra cold climate allowance of £3.50 per week would be payable. Zone 3 would cover northern England, Northern Ireland, central and southern Scotland where an additional cold climate allowance of £7 per week would be payable. In zone 4, which covers northern Scotland, an additional cold climate allowance of £10.51 per week would be paid.

Mr. John Marshall: As an emigre Scot, I find the hon. Lady's speech interesting. She is known for being precise with her figures. Can she tell the House how much this would all cost?

Mrs. Ewing: As I sat down I said, "I bet he is going to ask me the cost." If the hon. Gentleman would care to listen, I am not afraid to argue on the statistics. It is not

merely a matter of Government expenditure. It is about human lives. It is about people. We as legislators must decide our own priorities.

Mr. Duncan: How much?

Mrs. Ewing: I am coming to that. Just wait. There is such a thing as manners, I hope. This is something about which I feel passionately. I am happy to give the House the statistics, which have been assessed, checked and discussed in great detail with the organisations involved.
I believe that manners are important in debates, especially on serious matters such as this. This is not party-political knockabout stuff. It is about people. It is about elderly people frightened to put on their fires. It is about people with a handicapped child who know that they need additional heating but are uncertain whether they will receive any extra help. I ask for an element of manners from Conservative Members.
The allowance would be paid for 17 weeks between December and April. The estimate of the total cost is £625 million per annum for the whole of the United Kingdom and, for Scotland alone, £155 million per annum Those are our figures from January this year. An element of increase may have to be allowed for as a result of a small increase in inflation, but the figures are serious estimates. I am happy to lay them before the House and to ask Conservative Members, "Is that a price worth paying?". There are many who would prefer to see Trident come to our shores. One estimate of the cost of servicing Trident is £380 million per annum. I should like to see that £380 million diverted into a scheme of cold climate allowances because that is where my political priorities happen to lie.
Other countries manage to run cold climate allowance schemes. Conservative Members are often happy to deride the small Republic of Ireland, but in Eire during the winter months, the Government readily and automatically pay cold climate allowances to a variety of people. The people who are eligible include those on old age pension, retirement pension, widow's pension, blind person's pension, invalidity pension, deserted wife's benefit allowance, lone parent's allowance, pre-retirement allowance, prisoner's wife allowance, social security pension, benefit from another country, long-term unemployment assistance, disabled person's allowance, infectious diseases maintenance allowance, basic supplementary welfare allowance and special department of defence allowance. All those people are entitled to a cold climate allowance in the small Republic of Ireland, but in the United Kingdom no one is entitled to such an automatic payment.
I hope that my hon. Friends will have time to develop other aspects of our motion such as energy efficiency in our homes. It was clear from discussions in Scottish Questions yesterday that the Government have not yet examined the housing conditions survey which was undertaken in Scotland by Scottish Homes. That survey showed that almost a third of our housing stock suffered from dampness, condensation or mould.
It is also important to tell the Government as they plan the Budget that VAT on domestic fuel is not the best way to conserve energy. The best way to conserve energy is to increase the energy efficiency of our housing stock. That


would save lives, save energy and create jobs. If we create jobs, we build up the tax base for the country so that we can assist those who so desperately need our assistance.
I conclude by repeating that I regard this as an issue of morality and principle. I was not elected to the House merely to go along with what was happening. I have argued the case with a great deal of feeling not only for the many hundreds of people in my constituency who have written to me, but for the people whom I know as family members and as friends who suffer great difficulties during our winter months.
When we talk about some form of compensation, we all have a responsibility placed on our shoulders to analyse effectively and caringly what compensation we shall give to our people. I say simply, "What cost is a human life?"

The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'commends Her Majesty's Government on its range of policies designed to protect the most vulnerable from the effects of cold weather and to stimulate energy conservation measures in the United Kingdom; and in particular welcomes the improvements in the Cold Weather Payments Scheme, the increased resources devoted to improving insulation for homes, and the extra help amounting to more than £1 billion given to poorer pensioners.'.
I listened with keen interest to the points made by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). She knows the personal respect that I have for her. She argued with her usual clarity and passion a case which I do not believe to be particularly defensible. I hope that I can convince the House that the proposal that she has put before us this evening is likely to be ill targeted, extremely expensive and probably would not achieve the aim that she has set out.
The hon. Lady used words such as "anger" and "neglect" in her speech. In the past two decades, both parties of government have considered the matter. Both turned down the approach which the hon. Lady has again advocated this evening. The Conservative Government have consistently improved the shape and pattern of the exceptional cold weather payments scheme, and I shall return to that point in a moment. We have sought to ensure that those who need help with the cost of fuel during cold weather in their area are properly compensated and protected.
I must make it clear that I do not accept the case that the hon. Member for Moray made for a cold climate allowance. Any help that we give for extra fuel costs resulting from cold weather should be based on precisely that—actual cold weather at the time and in that location. That is precisely what our cold weather payments system does, and does well. It is well-targeted help for the people most likely to need it in those places where the weather is very cold.
Although the hon. Lady made it clear that she was not speaking exclusively for Scotland, understandably she made particular mention of Scotland. The pattern of expenditure on fuel across the United Kingdom as a whole shows that there is little difference between the amount of money spent, particularly by poorer people but also in general, in Scotland and the amount of money spent in the rest of the United Kingdom. The south-east of England obviously has a pattern of temperatures which is distinct

from that in the northern parts of England and Wales, but the overall pattern is not very different in Scotland from that in the rest of the United Kingdom.
In essence, we need to examine the case that the hon. Lady made not on the basis of the position in Scotland but by considering the argument that the allowance should be introduced throughout the United Kingdom. I believe that that would be a move against the whole flow of social security policy in this country and against seeking to ensure that social protection policies are affordable by the taxpayer who, at the end of the day, must pay the bill. Throughout the developed world, we are all having to consider our social protection policies to ensure that they are affordable and that we are not placing burdens on this and future generations which they may find unacceptable.
The kind of policy that the hon. Member for Moray has advocated this evening would be ill targeted in the extreme. It would be a scatter-gun approach to the delivery of help. I believe that the Government's present policy of cold weather payments is well targeted and affordable within the context of our overall social security policy.

Mr. Alex Salmond: The Minister made a very spurious point when he argued that weekly expenditure in the cold areas is not much different from that in other areas. Similarly, he could argue that poor people spend less each week than rich people on their heating bills. The key figures relate to the percentage of weekly expenditure. On that basis, the poor and people in colder areas spend dramatically more than the rich and those in warmer areas as a percentage of their household expenditure. The reason why the absolute figures are different is quite simple: people cannot afford to buy the heating that they need. The Minister is talking about under heating. I hope that he will move on from his totally spurious point.

Mr. Scott: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's argument on a regional basis, as I have explained. The statistics are clear. If the hon. Gentleman would like to ask me specific questions, I will answer them.
With regard to people who receive benefits, the difference between the amount of money spent on fuel in Scotland hardly differs from that in the rest of the United Kingdom. That is the figure upon which we must work. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's point that that means that people cannot afford those payments. If the weather is cold in Scotland or elsewhere in the United Kingdom during a particular period, people are given extra help with those costs. The idea that we should select a number of months and, whatever the temperature may be in a particular part of the United Kingdom, simply pay an extra benefit is the reverse of what we have been trying to achieve in social security as a whole, which is to ensure that the available resources are targeted on those who really need them at a specific time.

Mr. Thomas Graham: I hope to speak in the debate later, so I will not take up much of the Minister's time now, but does he realise that the housing stock in Scotland is disastrous? More than 250,000 houses suffer from damp and condensation. In the winter months, people cannot afford to heat their houses, so they retreat into one room and try to live there. They pay for that. I will refer to that later in the debate and refer to my personal experiences.

Mr. Scott: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. However, I have examined with great care the issue in relation to the different parts of Great Britain and to the United Kingdom as a whole. There is no significant regional difference in the expenditure on fuel costs in the different parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. John Marshall: Has my right hon. Friend noted regional differences in electricity tariffs? Is he aware that, due to the nature of hydro-electricity which is the dominant system in the north of Scotland, Scottish electricity tariffs are 10 per cent. lower than in the rest of the country?

Mr. Scott: I accept my hon. Friend's point. That difference is manifestly an incontrovertible fact.
I want to return to the main theme of the hon. Member for Moray, which was whether there should be a special allowance, paid irrespective of the temperature in any part of the United Kingdom, simply because we are moving into a certain calendar period. I do not believe that that would be right. It would be ill targeted and random.
The hon. Lady referred to a cost of about £0.5 billion a year to introduce her scheme. However, the scheme that she advanced in previous years also included about £1.5 billion of capital costs up front. The hon. Lady may have removed herself from her previous argument. The cost of £0.5 billion would be very significant and we would have to take that into account.

Mrs. Ewing: Will the Minister define capital costs?

Mr. Scott: Having read what the hon. Lady said before and what those who have campaigned for the cold climate scheme have said, I understood that the capital costs of the first part related to the energy efficiency programme. That involved insulating large numbers of houses in the United Kingdom. The costs of that were established very clearly two or three years ago at about £1.5 billion in capital expenditure up front before the £0.5 billion a year in running costs for the scheme which the hon. Lady has advocated today.

Mrs. Ewing: I am interested in what the Minister is saying, but I believe that he has confused different messages. If there was substantial expenditure on energy efficiency which, as I have said, would save lives, save energy and create jobs and thereby increase the tax base, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that ultimately the arguments for a cold climate allowance would probably disappear? If the housing stock was brought up to the necessary level, we would not need to consider this point. However, the insulation standards of the housing stock in Scotland is currently equivalent to the position in Sweden in the 1940s.

Mr. Scott: I will return to the question of energy efficiency later. However, the case as presented in earlier years ran the two schemes together and involved the cost of up-front expenditure of £1.5 billion and running expenses of about £0.5 billion.
To return to the theme that I want to present to the House tonight, the factors that influence a person's need for help with heating are many and varied. The weather is certainly a factor which we must obviously take into account and that is reflected in our cold weather payments scheme. However, much also depends on the size of the home, the type of heating system and the standards of insulation.
The picture is complex and I do not believe that it is susceptible to the rather simplistic approach that the hon. Member for Moray has adopted this evening. Over the years, the Government have developed a range of targeted policies designed to address the different factors about which we are concerned when we talk about the undoubted problems that cold weather causes for a significant number of families in the United Kingdom. I recognise those problems and the Government's responsibility to adopt sensible policies to deal with them.
We already provide considerable help with energy efficiency measures for low-income households. As the House will be aware, we continue to put extra resources into the home energy efficiency scheme for which the budget has increased by more than 50 per cent. since 1991. That scheme operates throughout Great Britain and provides grants towards the cost of loft, tank and pipe insulation. It also provides for draught proofing and energy advice for low-income households who receive income-related benefits. It aims to provide for improvements for some 240,000 homes this year, and nearly £38 million will be available for grants in that area.
Private sector households which receive the same benefits are also eligible for minor works assistance. Those grants, which are part of the house renovation system administered by local authorities, frequently cover the provision or improvement of thermal insulation. Further assistance is also available through local authorities' mainstream council housing repair and improvement programmes as well as through programmes such as Estate Action and Green House programmes.
The Government have made the drive to improve—

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs. Ewing: rose—

Mr. Scott: One at a time, please. I will give way when I have finished my sentence.
The Government, by their provision of resources for those programmes, have recognised that standards of insulation are below what is necessary, but they are providing resources steadily to improve the standard that is achieved.

Mr. Welsh: Under the Minister's programme, when will the one in eight households in Scotland cease to live in dampness?

Mr. Scott: A great deal will depend on the efficiency of local authorities in Scotland in tackling problems with their housing stock. In Scotland, it is generally local authority housing which suffers most from that problem. It will depend on local authorities' willingness and determination, within the resources that they are allowed, to tackle the problem.
Energy efficiency and energy saving are particularly important. The Energy Saving Trust, which was set up in November to propose, develop and manage programmes and to promote the efficient use of electricity in the domestic and small business sector, is developing schemes particularly directed at the needs of low-income families to ensure that affordable warmth can be achieved through the better insulation of their homes.
The Government have been particularly active in running the "Keep warm, keep well" scheme in recent years. I understand the hon. Lady's point about the


vulnerability of many people, in particular the elderly and people living alone, during periods of cold weather. Although the "Keep well, keep warm" campaign in England and Wales and the "Keep warm this winter" equivalent north of the border are concerned with a range of services, one of the points that I have always emphasised as I have played my part in promoting our campaign has been good neighbourliness. If only people who live close to individuals who might be particularly vulnerable to the impact of cold weather would keep an eye on their neighbours and give them advice, help and support and look out for signs that others might be under some threat, we could do much to counter the impact of cold weather, particularly on elderly people who live alone.
The "Keep well, keep warm" scheme, which is run in conjunction with Age Concern, Help the Aged and Neighbourhood Energy Action, has had a significant effect north and south of the border on our approach to coping with the problems of cold weather and how to minimise its effects and provide advice to those who need it.

Mr. Eric Martlew: The Minister mentioned Age Concern. What representations have the Government received from Age Concern about VAT on fuel?

Mr. Scott: The House will no doubt have opportunities in future to discuss VAT on fuel. My right hon. Friends will announce in due course the precise details of the scheme to compensate the most vulnerable people for the impact of VAT on fuel. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Social Security and others have made that clear. I am not in a position today to say what the details of that scheme will be, but it will be an effective scheme and it will be well targeted at people who need help.

Mrs. Ewing: Obviously, we do not expect the Minister to give notice, but we assume that the Government are talking about an increase of only £1 in the basic state pension. Does he believe that that will be enough to cope with the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel? According to Hansard, in 1991, he promised to review the system of assistance to the most vulnerable and to examine the operation of the current system. Surely he is building in poverty in such a way that it will be absolutely impossible to eradicate it.

Mr. Scott: The hon. Lady is seeking to lure me down a path that I have no intention of treading. Indeed, I am not in a position to do that. More senior colleagues will announce in due course what the package will be. The £1 increase which the hon. Lady mentioned and which has been mentioned in the public prints is simply taking forward the RPI for—

Mrs. Ewing: rose—

Mr. Scott: Perhaps the hon. Lady will let me finish the sentence—the increase in the retirement pension that would flow from taking the 1.8 per cent. figure in September through to the uprating in the new year, totally outwith and ignoring any compensation that we might introduce for the impact of VAT upon fuel costs for those people.

Mrs. Ewing: Does the Minister accept that built into state benefits is an element for heating? As account has

been taken of the RPI, there has been a reduced heating element in the state premiums paid to people on invalidity benefit and pensions, for example, in proportion to their income and expenditure.

Mr. Scott: That is a different point. The compensation for people responding to the impact of VAT on fuel will be totally distinct from and additional to the ordinary uprating that the Government will be making to the retirement pension and other benefits next April. That is the essence of the argument. I have to ask the hon. Lady and others who are rightly concerned about the matter to await the announcement in due course by my right hon. Friend.

Dr. Godman: With regard to the eligibility criteria for the system of financial support, is the Minister satisfied that local Benefits Agency officers are able to help vulnerable individuals who come into the community from long-term institutional care? What guidelines are given to those local officers of his Department in respect of the heating needs and, indeed, other needs of that vulnerable element in the community?

Mr. Scott: I acknowledge that the problem that the hon. Gentleman has raised about people leaving institutional care means that it is incumbent upon our local offices to identify those cases and make sure that they are included in the system, but, in general, the automatic system of identifying customers who are eligible for cold weather payments has worked remarkably successfully and accurately since it was introduced. It is now automatic. It is now available to people, not just in retrospect for a period of cold weather but when a cold weather period of seven days is forecast.
Without the need to apply, people can receive cold weather payments simply, automatically and fairly. Those are almost the words that the hon. Member for Moray used when she advocated her scheme. The cold weather scheme might not be exactly what she would like, but simple, automatic and fair are certainly three of the qualities of the cold weather payment scheme as it exists today.

Dr. Godman: People coming into the community from long-term care are an important issue. Recently, I had the case of a woman living in the most appalling conditions —no heating at all. Is the Minister satisfied with the development of the relationship vis a vis care in the community between Benefits Agency officials and local social workers? In just about all cases now, those individuals are, in a very real sense, protected by social workers. Is the Minister satisfied with the arrangements that have been established between Benefits Agency officers and social work and, south of the border, social services departments?

Mr. Scott: Knowing the hon. Gentleman as I do, I know that he would not raise that as a trivial point; it is a matter that he takes seriously. I have no evidence that the system is not working properly, but I will certainly make inquiries to ensure that the aspect that he raised is examined very carefully. It is obviously a matter between Departments —the Department of Health concerned with social services provision and ourselves who are concerned with benefits payments. I take the hon. Gentleman's point very seriously. As I have said, we have made several important improvements to the scheme and obviously we monitor its effects. A point was made about weather stations, especially Eskdalemuir. We monitor the system year by


year. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Moray has seen Statutory Instrument No. 2450, which includes a number of changes made to the areas covered by the Eskdalemuir weather station.
Every year, I receive a number of representations from hon. Members to the effect that their areas need a more finely tuned system to meet the needs of their constituents. Despite my meteorological training in the Royal Air Force many years ago, I am not able to make such judgments; I rely heavily on the Meteorological Office, which is helpful and considerate. If hon. Members look at the schedule to the order, they will see that we have altered the boundaries of many areas covered by specific meteorological stations to make them more sensitive to the needs of people living in those areas.

Mrs. Ewing: Has the Minister increased the number of stations?

Mr. Scott: No. We still have about 60 meteorological stations throughout Great Britain to cover those areas. I think that that is right. I rely on the professional advice of the Meteorological Office in these matters. As long as we listen to any local complaints and local experiences, we are doing well.
The Government's record in this respect is a good one. We have improved the cold weather payments scheme. We have ensured that income support, through its premium structure, enables us to give extra help to groups that are recognised as having special needs, such as families, disabled people and the elderly. The total extra help above the normal upratings that we have made available to pensioners on income-related benefits since 1989 is now worth about £1 billion a year. The same is broadly true of families on income-related benefits.
The scheme advanced by the hon. Lady, with her persuasive arguments, would be expensive to introduce and administer, and would not focus help accurately on those who need it most. It is vital that our huge social security budget is used to the best effect. Total social security expenditure in the current year is expected to be in the order of £80 billion. We owe a duty to the taxpayer and to the public at large to ensure that that money is properly targeted and sensibly used. I do not believe that the introduction of the scheme proposed by the hon. Lady would fit that pattern.

Mr. Henry McLeish: This is an important debate dealing with an issue of genuine and growing importance not only in Scotland but throughout the United Kingdom. The debate must be seen against the background of an alarming growth in fuel poverty in Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom and the threats now being posed to low-income families as the Government seek to extract themselves from the £50 billion deficit that they created. Sadly, that seems to be based on attacking some of the poorest families, whether they are in Scotland or throughout the United Kingdom.
The key issues that lie at the heart of the debate are certainly the cold weather payments and the motion relating to the cold weather allowance. But we must go much deeper than that and consider some other issues: first, the growing income inequality in British society, manifested especially in Scotland—I shall give some figures on that later—and, secondly, the question of

housing conditions and how they impact on the issue of fuel poverty. Some of my hon. Friends have already raised this matter. It is important that it should not be missed in any series of strategies to tackle the issue.
I shall stress the crazy, corrupt and cynical proposal to impose VAT on fuel because, in any debate about fuel poverty and cold weather allowances, it is vital to consider the wider canvas. Clearly, any Government who impose VAT on fuel on the majority of families in this country have little regard for the genuine issues.
Earlier, I said that the cold weather payments scheme certainly has weaknesses—the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) pointed them out to the House. When one considers that something like £50 million was spent In 2.5 million cases in Great Britain in the last year for which figures are available, it is clear that that is an insignificant amount, relative to the whole social security budget and the whole area of need.
The crucial issue is not to dwell on the payment for exceptional or severe weather but to consider the wider background of fuel poverty generally. Most people agree that in the society in which we live, it is an obscenity that, in 1993, people must make agonising choices every day about whether they eat or heat. That is a trite way—some would say that it is an exaggerated way—of raising the issue. However, it is a reality for my constituents and those of my hon. Friends who feel that people should not have to make such choices.
Another issue is the growing inability of people simply to face their fuel bills. What a situation! To think that families which may have sick people, disabled people and large families must think about the level at which the heating in their homes operates. We have economic problems in Britain, but surely we cannot argue that millions of our fellow citizens must make such decisions day in and day out. Sadly, it can be a life or death situation for some elderly people. When I visit some of my constituents their houses are absolutely frozen. They spend half their days in bed—they simply do not have enough income to spend on fuel. This issue is a political one—it is about the resources of the nation—but it is also a human issue and it underlines the whole question of fuel poverty.
Earlier, I referred to income inequality. By any standard, Scotland produces figures that are absolutely frightening. One of the key hallmarks of the Government is the reinforcement of the dependency culture in Scotland. One quarter of a million Scots are out of work. Two thirds of them are on income support and one third are on benefits. What income do they have to make choices about heating? The Department's figures show that 900,000 Scots—that is one out of every six—live in families where income support is the only source of income. I think that the Government will agree that income support is not a generous allowance—it is a basic allowance. I am sure that the figures are similar in other regions of the United Kingdom.
A much more debatable point is the fact that nearly 600,000 Scots work for less than £4 per hour, which is not a large sum. However, they must make decisions about what they spend and what they do not spend, and that is atrocious.
The Government should recognise that before we talk about cold weather payments and NAT on fuel, we should look at fuel debt as part of income support. The Department's figures show that in Scotland in May 1991, £2 million a month was deducted from income support


payments to pay off fuel debt. So at present we have figures from the Department of Social Security which confirm that people do not have enough money to pay and amounts are being deducted from their income support. That reinforces our case that income support and part of the income inequality issue is crucial to any reasonable understanding of where we are in terms of fuel poverty.
If that is not bad enough, what is startling is that we top the European cold winter deaths league. In a modern society that looks over the developed world and into Europe, we have more old people dying in the winter period in Britain. Many factors may be at work. It would not be wise to single out one cause, but the problem deserves an investigation. It worries Opposition Members and I am sure that it worries the Government.
The key, however, when discussing the Government's fiscal policy, is always to remember that those groups at the bottom of the income ladder are spending roughly four times as much on fuel as a proportion of their income as are those at the top. The point was well made earlier, that that is a crucial ingredient when we consider VAT, as I shall in a minute. Surely the Government are aware of the figures. Why cannot they accept that those people in Scotland on income support, in unemployment or on low pay, have no choice; they have to heat their houses? It is not a luxury item. When we consider how much those people spend on fuel as a proportion of their household income, it should impress upon us that we should be cautious in what we do, especially when raising taxes. Taxes may reduce the deficit, but they may have punitive effects on the people on whom they are imposed.
One would expect the Government to be energetic about energy conservation, and the Minister has highlighted some of the developments that have been made, but they are simply not enough.
Let us consider the Scottish housing condition survey—which has just been published—in terms of energy conservation and modernisation. The survey shows that 28.7 per cent. of the occupied stock in Scotland—584,000 houses—show some evidence of dampness, condensation or mould. One in eight Scottish households live in damp housing and one in five households live in dwellings affected by condensation. Tragically, 70,000 households that are occupied by pensioners are in those categories.
That knowledge must be a substantial contribution to any issue relating to fuel poverty, but it is simply not being tackled on the scale that is required. Any degree of insensitivity in tackling that problem will only mean that five or 10 years down the road the problems will be much worse and will acquire a degree of investment. I challenge the Under-Secretary of State to mention that problem when he sums up. I appreciate that it is not part of his wider remit because it is a housing problem, but I hope that, with his hon. Friends, he will be able to tackle that concern.
Following the privatisation of electricity and gas, there are people in the marketplace who want to provide more and more fuel. The major generators should be concerned about conservation and should be considering energy supplies. Why cannot they be more involved in ensuring proper insulation and helping the Government to tackle, in particular, the public sector housing problem?
Any energetic Government would be considering farsighted policies to tackle those problems, but that is not the case here. Instead there is the draconian proposal to impose a tax on fuel. We have listed the worries of people who are unable to pay their bills at the existing levels. What on earth can the application of a tax of, on average, £2.40 per week do for those people who are already struggling at the bottom of the income ladder? The tax will reinforce the crisis that confronts poorer families in Scotland. It will simply help to kill more elderly people in the winters after the tax has been imposed at the full 17.5 per cent.
The tax is apparently being imposed regardless of its practical consequences. The Treasury may think that the problem is a fiscal one and that the tax will reduce the deficit—my God, the deficit has to be reduced, but at whose expense? Is there no serious solution that the Government could conjure up without causing more problems for those who are already in difficulties?
The issue of VAT is quite remarkable. We know that poorer families spend a disproportionate amount of their income on heating and fuel. The household expenditure of such families will increase proportionately much more dramatically than those earning a great deal more at the top of the income scale. What should be done about that?
The Government say that they will help out the people who have problems, but will they help out the quarter of a million Scots who are on the dole? Will they help out the 900,000 people who are living in families with income support? Will they help out those who are on low pay, earning less than £3 or £4 per hour? Will they help the 1.1 million pensioners in Scotland, some of whom are on income support and some of whom get by on an occupational pension which merely takes them above levels at which benefits are paid? Of course they will not. It would be crazy for the people in the Treasury to conjure up a punitive tax and then have to spend huge sums of money to compensate people for what the Government inflict upon them. I believe that that is morally and politically offensive in relation to the people whom I have described. It is a punishment for most people because everyone will pay that ludicrous tax, but we have to have concern for those who are in greatest need.
The Government should seriously consider all the matters that we have highlighted this evening, including the subject of cold weather payments, but it would not make one iota of difference in a real sense to tinker with proposals against the massive income inequalities that are growing, and against the deplorable housing conditions that generate fuel poverty. Of course the Government would be better served, even at this stage, by abandoning the imposition of VAT on fuel. We think that we have a strong case. It is a moral and a political case. I sincerely hope that when the Minister winds up tonight he wilt tackle some of the deeper, more significant issues that I have raised in my contribution.

Mr. George Kynoch: It is a pleasure to speak in this important debate on cold weather. I speak as a Member for a constituency which contains perhaps one of the coldest villages in Britain, Braemar, but I shall mention that later.
Having heard the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) open this debate—I am sorry that she is no longer in her


seat to hear the rest of the debate—I have a lot of sympathy with many of the emotions that she expressed. There is no doubt about it; we are very anxious to protect the old, and especially those on low incomes, from the ravages of cold weather. Having listened to the hon. Lady, however, one would imagine that the Government had done nothing to help them. She is wrong. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People has already listed significant improvements to the cold weather payments scheme which were introduced some years ago.
I must also correct the hon. Member for Moray because she will be aware that before I became a Member of the House I used to live in her constituency and I therefore know the area quite well. She will perhaps be aware of the monitoring points for the cold weather payments for her constituency. She spoke about there being one monitoring point for the entire constituency, from the highlands up to Aviemore—although I know that Aviemore is outwith her constituency—down to the coastal belt of the Moray firth. I understand that her constituency has a similar coverage to mine and that the coastal area is covered from a monitoring point at Aberdeen, on the coast, whereas the highlands are covered from Aviemore.
I shall return to that later. First, I must deal with her suggestion of a cold weather payment allowance. She mentioned four zones, with the fourth—northern Scotland —having the highest allowance. As I said, before the election I used to live in Moray and I know what the temperatures there are like. Moray consists of the Spey valley. I have now moved across a set of hills to the Dee valley. My goodness, the temperature there is significantly lower than the temperature in Moray. Yet, under the hon. Lady's proposed cold weather allowance, everyone would be paid the same. Is it right and proper that my constituents, who live in a much colder area, should be given the same as her constituents? I do not think that it is.
If we impose that sort of blanket coverage, there will be inequalities, and that does not apply only to Scotland. I am sure that some of the coldest areas of England can match the temperature in parts of Scotland, although they could not match the coldest area in my constituency. If we introduce blanket coverage, we will open up a hornet's nest. I stand by the Government's cold weather payments scheme, targeted at cold areas and those who need them most.

Mr. Salmond: If I were the hon. Gentleman I would start to worry about the political temperature in my constituency. Will he carry his concern about cold in his constituency into the Lobby against the Government when we vote on value added tax on domestic fuel, or will he vote against his constituency interest, as he did on fishing, oil workers and the regiments?

Mr. Kynoch: I hear what the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) says, but perhaps I am rather more sensible than him. As I have heard only half of the equation for VAT on fuel, I look forward with great interest to hearing the other half when my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us the balancing factor—the benefits for those in need. To criticise the tax when one knows that we have to raise taxes is totally wrong and misleading, but it is typical of the Scottish National party. The nationalists are trying to stir

up emotions and worry people. They are trying to tell people that they will not get something that has not even been announced yet.
On the details of the cold weather payments scheme, I had some sympathy for the hon. Member for Moray when she mentioned the monitoring points. I have referred to Braemar—a village in my constituency, which nestles in the Dee valley about 60 miles west of Aberdeen. Braemar is a particularly cold part of Scotland. I have here some temperatures for the past three years, which were recorded in Braemar by the local primary school, which is a climatic monitoring station for the Meteorological Office. It might interest my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench to know that the minimum daily temperature was less than freezing on 116 days in 1991—that is one third of the year. In 1992, the number of days below freezing dropped slightly to 102, and this year there had already been 38 days below 0 deg C by August. During the past three years the minimum average monthly temperature has risen to above 10 deg C—48 deg F for those of us who deal in older units—only once, in July 1991.
I am worried about the residents of Braemar because the cold weather payments scheme is geared to look after people like them. There are many retired people and people on low incomes in Braemar. It is important that we ensure that the cold weather payments scheme works and applies to those people. I am sure that the Government are concerned about that.
I then looked at the average mean temperature in Braemar during the past three years, to find out how many times the cold weather payments would have been triggered if the monitoring point had been there. I found out from a particularly helpful gentleman at the Meteorological Office this morning—a Mr. Davis—that the cold weather payment would have been triggered by a consecutive period of seven cold days on six occasions in 1991, if the temperature had been recorded at Braemar. In 1992 there would have been one payment and in 1993 there would have been three. As I said, the monitoring station is at Aviemore and the payments for my constituency were triggered less often. In 1991 they were triggered only twice; in 1991–92 there was no payment; and in 1992–93, when the winter must have been somewhat warmer or more uniform, the payment was triggered three times, which is what would have happened if Braemar had been the monitoring point.
I am greatly concerned. We have a scheme that deals with the problems caused by the effects of cold on people on low incomes and the elderly. We must make absolutely sure that it works.
I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to assure me that he will consider upgrading the monitoring station for the Braemar end of the Dee valley. When I picked up the phone this morning the same Mr. Davis said, "Ah, yes. Braemar would be the ideal spot for monitoring cold weather payments in that area but it puts in its record only monthly". It puts in its record monthly because a primary school is recording temperatures on a daily basis and is asked for the record only monthly. Any difficulty lies in who will pay the telephone calls to submit the daily figures to Bracknell. I may be wrong but, if that is so, I urge my hon. Friend to overcome that problem so that the current system, which I believe is good, works and protects those whom it is designed to protect.
I understand that a cold period lasting seven days, in which the mean temperature is below zero, is needed


before the cold weather payment is triggered. What happens if we have a period of, say, nine days when the mean temperature is below zero? Under the existing rules, I understand that seven days' payment is then made and a fresh period of seven days then begins in which one must requalify. In my constituency and the Dee valley, a significant number of cold days fall between trigger points —between seven and 14 days or between 14 and 21 days—and thus cannot become qualifying periods. We should pay for that intervening period.
The hon. Member for Moray referred to automatic payments. I understand that the payments are made automatically by computer if one is eligible for benefit and that one does not have to claim for them. They can also be paid on days on which the temperature is forecast below zero.
The hon. Lady unintentionally distorted some of the benefits of the cold weather payments scheme. There is a lot of good in the scheme. Although I believe that she is seriously concerned for her constituents and I share her concern, I do not share her solution because it would have to be paid for at the expense of those whom she is trying to protect.
I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to upgrade the Braemar primary school station to a met station capable of being the monitoring point for that area and to review the seven-day period so that, when a cold spell lasts longer than seven days, parts of that period can also be covered.

Mr. Eric Martlew: It is important to put on record the fact that cold weather is not stopped by Hadrian's wall. I congratulate the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) on bringing this debate before the House.
On Monday morning, before I came down to Westminster, I went to Carlisle city centre where the excellent pensioners' rights organisation was organising a petition against VAT on fuel. I signed the petition and stayed to talk to some of the pensioners. It was a cold, bright day in Carlisle and a north wind was blowing from the Scottish mountains. But VAT on fuel was sending a shiver down the backs of the pensioners in my constituency. It should also send a shiver down the backs of Conservative Members.

Mrs. Ewing: I was not in Scotland over the weekend and did not deliberately send down a cold wind in the direction of the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I have a great deal of love and affection for Carlisle as many members of my family live in that area. I happened to be in Carmarthen in Wales, where people were chipping the ice off their car windows on that morning. We recognise the fact that climatic conditions can affect all parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Martlew: There is no doubt that it is a British problem. Shivers should be running down the backs of Conservative Members——

Mrs. Ewing: They have no spine.

Mr. Martlew: I take the hon. Lady's point. Shivers should be going down the spines of Conservative Members

because many of the people that I talked to had voted Conservative in the previous election, but many said that they would not do so again.
An elderly gentleman, who had worked for most of his life, had a small works pension, had put away a bit of money and had fought in the last war. He told me that, although he would have liked to, he did not receive income support because he received a pension. He said that dramatic interest rates cuts may have helped mortgage payers, but had cut the interest on his small amount of savings. He also commented on the fact that German pensioners who had also fought in the last war were treated better by their Government than he was by ours.
We have heard that tale on many occasions, but it is still true. That gentleman knew that he was being badly treated by the Government and that he would have to tighten his belt in order to afford to heat his house after the introduction of VAT on fuel. VAT on fuel is wicked, evil and should never have been considered. Conservative Members agree with that, but they do so because they consider the issue in political terms; we agree because we see it in social terms—VAT on fuel will bring devastation to many people.
People die of cold in the winter. The statistics prove that, in this country, 35,000 people, many of them elderly, die in the winter months. What does the Government do to help? They do nothing to help, but instead decide to put VAT on fuel. That will have only one effect; it will mean that more people will die next winter when VAT comes in at 8 per cent. and even more will die when VAT goes up to 17.5 per cent. in the following winter. However, that is what the Government are contemplating.
The present cold weather payment arrangements do not work well. Reference has been made to Eskdalemuir. It is probably one of the better stations, and better than the one in Northumberland. Eskdalemuir is 400 ft above sea level and last year triggered cold weather payments three or four times. The weather station in my constituency is at sea level. I believe that cold weather payments were triggered on only one occasion. That meant that the people of Gretna received cold weather payments four times, but those who live just over the bridge and across the river in England received only one cold weather payment. There must be something wrong with a system that allows that to happen. Nobody will convince me that temperatures vary from one side of a bridge to another. I know that it has been exciting on the bridge, but that was 300 years ago, and we have calmed down a lot since then.
Recently, the National Lottery Bill went through the House. The cold weather payment system is a lottery—the Government's decisions on where the temperatures are to be taken constitute a lottery. It cannot be seen as a fair system. Unless the Government are prepared to introduce more stations or another system, the cold weather payment arrangements will be seen as unjust by the people who should benefit.
The hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) referred to the fact that seven days in a row of cold weather are required before payments are made. Do not people spend extra money on fuel during six days of cold weather? Do they spend extra money only on the seventh day? What if there are six days of cold weather, the temperature rises 1 deg C above the limit for one day and then there are another six days of cold weather? Will that mean that those in the district do not use extra fuel? It will mean that they receive no extra payment. The system is not


fair and it is seen not to be fair. We have a lottery, but the seven-day system is like the football pools—if one gets seven draws, one gets a dividend, albeit a low one of £6. But if one gets six draws, one gets nothing.
Perhaps the system advocated by the hon. Member for Moray is not the right one, but we must arrive at a just system for the whole country. There should of course be fewer people on income support; that can be achieved only by providing more work for those without it. We need the basic pension to be set at a level that allows people to dispense with income support or special allowances of any kind. The people who receive such allowances do not want special treatment: they just want fair treatment.
I am glad that today's motion was tabled. The people in my constituency are angry about VAT on fuel and distressed because they often miss out on cold weather payments. Conservative Members have said that we know only half the equation. That is not our fault. Why did not the Government announce what they were going to do for the vulnerable when they announced the imposition of VAT on fuel? Actually, they did announce it—they intended to do nothing. It is only because of public pressure and the realisation by some Conservative Members that they are likely to lose their seats—they have been looking over the water to Canada and they have seen how cold it can be there—that the Government have thought again.
We must get rid of VAT on fuel. It is no good the Minister being so urbane at the Dispatch Box and giving way all the time when he gives nothing away to the people whom I represent.

Mr. Alan Duncan: I shall detain the House for only a few minutes as I do not wish to deny Opposition Members the chance to speak.
I have watched the debate with interest and the Minister has already said most of what I wanted to say. At the risk of destroying his political prospects, I hope that the House will allow me to commend the performance by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish), whom I have not seen before at the Dispatch Box. I have no doubt that we will see him there again, however.
I believe that the proposal by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) is fatally flawed because it advocates the delivery of a benefit that does not meet the problem which she described to the House. The hon. Lady speaks in terms of the deaths of elderly people who are deprived of the ability to heat their homes. There is no doubt that any sort of poverty presents risks of that sort, but to defuse that risk the hon. Lady has presented us with a system that massively increases public spending—by her own admission, by hundreds of millions of pounds. That expenditure will not, however, solve the problem that she has so energetically and passionately defined. That is why I want to take her to task and to put this debate in its correct context.
There are two distinct aspects to the motion. The first is the VAT on fuel announced in the Budget; the second is the hon. Lady's proposal for a cold climate allowance. I fear that too many extraneous issues have been introduced to this debate without a proper presentation of the facts.
Over the past few years the costs of domestic fuel have fallen dramatically, partly as a result of privatisation, and partly as a result of world energy prices. Anyone with a constituency in Scotland will know about the oil price

movements of the past few years. Domestic energy prices have fallen. Gas prices have fallen by 21 per cent. since 1986, the price of oil has fallen, and the price of electricity, strictly controlled by the regulations included in the privatisation legislation, is also beginning to fall.

Mrs. Ewing: Irrespective of the cost of domestic fuel —I have already mentioned the implications of the RPI for benefits—does the hon. Gentleman dispute the fact that the 10 per cent. of households with the lowest incomes will be hit seven times harder by VAT on domestic fuel than will the richest 10 per cent.—a statistic produced by the university of Cambridge?

Mr. Duncan: I shall shortly deal with that when I examine the percentage of household income that is spent on fuel, because that issue is crucial to the argument. VAT will be levied initially at 8 per cent. and it is planned to raise it to 17.5 per cent. I have discovered from the Library the estimate of how much a household spends on fuel. I have all the figures, but I shall deal with just one category —a retired couple in a household who depend mainly on state benefits. It is said that they spend 7.9 per cent. of their household income on domestic fuel, of which VAT will represent an increase of about 1.5 per cent.
VAT on fuel will be about £1 to £2 a week per household. For most people that is affordable, as it represents the price of a pint of beer or a bit more. However, for many people it will not be affordable and the Government are directing their efforts and targeting money at those people. The cost of the hon. Lady's proposal is excessive, but its benefit to the people that I have described is not particularly effective. The Government can best deliver that benefit to those who are most in need. That is exactly what we on the Select Committee on Social Security are studying and we shall openly recommend to the House what we think is the most effective way to do it.
The hon. Lady and her party have pre-empted the debate by introducing scares and excitement and by examining only one side of the equation by refusing properly to discuss what the Government might be able to introduce. The hon. Lady has done the public a disservice by not presenting the facts equitably.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) said, there is already a cold climate allowance and it is working increasingly effectively. My hon. Friend described how it will be delivered automatically to those on benefit. However, he did say—and it should be said—that, thanks to the amendments that we have tabled, that allowance will be delivered within five to 10 days, probably even before bills are received. Therefore, the Government have directed considerable effort towards making sure that the specific delivery of benefits, payments and compensation is targeted to those who are most in need. That is better than the random, massive arbitrary benefit that has been recommended by the hon. Lady and her colleagues.
The motion is sloppily worded. It does not clearly say how the money is to be raised, although now that the Trident refit has moved to Rosyth, the Scottish Nationalists are happy to say that the money could come from that programme. The hon. Lady failed to say that if independence for Scotland is granted the revenue that she described will no longer be available to it. She is calling for


a massive and inefficient increase in the subsidies for Scotland and perhaps for other parts of the United Kingdom.
We must consider carefully how these benefits are to be delivered and we must take the debate away from massive, universal benefits.

Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Duncan: No, because I am coming to the end of my speech.
Expenditure must be much more closely directed to those in need. Those are the people that the hon. Lady has well described but by her motion has not helped.

Mrs. Ray Michie: There is not enough time to cover all the issues that I should like to cover, but I shall highlight one or two matters. I congratulate the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) on her excellent speech. She genuinely believes, as we all do, in the worth of what she says.
The debate is about people, about the elderly and disabled, and especially the latter who incur additional costs for daily heating and hot water and need a constant, warm environment.
The way to end fuel poverty is to invest massively in the housing stock and provide basic insulation. There are particular problems with the home energy efficiency scheme in rural areas.
I do not know whether the Minister is aware that contractors are reluctant to undertake work in more remote areas because the maximum grant is not sufficient to cover costs. The additional cost has to be absorbed by the installer or borne by the customer, so contractors tend to keep people in rural areas waiting until they have several jobs to do in one area. Individual jobs in rural areas can sometimes cost many hundreds of pounds more than the maximum grant. For that reason, the energy action grants agency has never been able to find a contractor for the Western Isles.
Most customers have to pay substantially more than the £16 for loft insulation and draughtproofing specified by the energy action grants agency. Many customers, such as those on income support, have had to give up having the work done because they can see no way of paying for it. Clearly, the grants are not enough to help the very people whom they are intended to benefit.
The Government should understand by now that their extraordinarily unpopular suggestion that they put VAT on power and fuel is frightening many people, particularly the elderly.
Let me draw attention to two letters that I have received from constituents. I have had many more letters on this particular subject than I ever had about the poll tax because so many people are genuinely worried about what is going to happen. I received a letter from a 69-year-old pensioner who wrote:
I now dread the winter. I often sit without heating or with only the limited heating of a storage heater, only putting on one bar of my electric fire. The rest of the house stays cold and I know what hypothermia feels like".
Another writes:
As a … pensioner I feel not welcome in my own country. I don't feel safe or secure over the future. I speak to local elderly

folk who just about manage to pay their fuel bills and who did have pride in their meagre independence. They are shocked and hurt over this tax on fuel.

Mr. Kynoch: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Michie: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I shall not give way as we are short of time. We want to wind up the debate and I am specifically trying to be brief.
The problems that I have outlined are genuinely worrying my constituents and many others. I am aware that there are cold parts throughout the United Kingdom, but it is significant that most Members of Parliament who have spoken tonight represent constituencies in Scotland. It is a very cold place. We have long, cold winters and very short, often also cold, summers. I received a copy of a letter from the Paymaster General to my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) who had written to him making clear his worry about the imposition of VAT on fuel. The Paymaster General wrote back to him, particularly about the highlands and islands, saying
However, it should be noted that though the cost of heating in the North may be more expensive this is only one aspect of the overall cost of living. Other day-to-day expenses may be considerably less costly in, for example, Scotland than in the South of England.
It sounds as though the Paymaster General has never been to the north of Scotland, where the cost of food, transport and ferry services make the cost of living much higher. I hope that the Minister will take on board all the points made tonight.

Mr. Alex Salmond: This debate has certainly justified the decision of my hon. Friends and myself to centre it on not just the imposition of value added tax on fuel but a whole range of issues connected with fuel poverty. The existing situation is intolerable and VAT on fuel will make it much worse.
My hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) dealt with the social security aspects of our proposals, so I shall concentrate on energy efficiency. The statistics on both are damning and should remove any vestiges of complacency of the kind shown by Government Members this evening.
In the United Kingdom, 7 million homes have heating problems and the figure for Scotland is 750,000. During Scottish Questions yesterday, it emerged almost casually that no fewer than 70,000 homes in Scotland with damp problems are homes where the head of the household is a pensioner. My hon. Friend quoted the latest frightening estimate that 3,000 to 5,000 deaths occur in Scotland each and every year from cold-related medical conditions.
Any Government with a shred of humanity would act to tackle those appalling statistics—not make them worse by imposing VAT on domestic fuel. The complacency on the Tory Benches was epitomised by the remarks of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), who revealed at the start of the debate that he had not even bothered to read any of the cold climate Bills that we have presented to the House over the past few years. He ended his speech by inadvertently revealing that he had no knowledge of the Scottish budget, in which our proposals for a cold climate allowance are part and parcel of the calculations.
Even worse than the hon. Gentleman's ignorance was the Minister's display of complacency this evening. He basically said that the Scots are exaggerating the nature of


the problem—that the poor in general spend less in absolute terms on fuel bills and that the Scots do not spend much more. The Minister betrayed his lack of understanding of the very nature of the problem.
The family expenditure survey figures show that in 1992, 5.4 per cent. of household income in Scotland goes on fuel expenditure, whereas the figure is 4 per cent. for the south of England and the United Kingdom average is 4.8 per cent. The poorest 10 per cent. spend seven times more as a percentage of household income on trying desperately to heat their homes compared with the top 10 per cent. The paradox is that the poor spend less in absolute terms because—as the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) said—they retreat to live in one room and to their beds because they cannot afford adequately to heat their whole houses.
If members of the Government Front Bench claim that we are exaggerating, perhaps they will heed the Northern Scotland Consumers Council (Electricity), which in its submission on VAT on fuel made the same point in respect of absolute expenditure:
We suggest that this figure could indicate that, through lack of funds, the proportion of underheated homes is much greater in Scotland.
I hope that Government Members who argued this evening that the problem is being tackled through the existing system will feel thoroughly ashamed when they return to face their constituents. Those hon. Members were of course merely echoing the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said that it is a question of proportion and that those who argue against VAT on fuel are getting matters out of proportion. Of course, it is a matter of proportion—in the sense that, as a percentage of income, a pensioner in Scotland will be affected six times as much as the Chancellor of the Exchequer by the imposition of VAT on fuel. That assumes that the Chancellor will pay his own heating bills, rather than their being met at the public expense.
The Chancellor says—and his view has been echoed this evening—that no sensible person would condemn the proposal for VAT on domestic fuel without knowing the nature of the compensation scheme. We are here this evening to say that no sane Chancellor would threaten such a measure without a precise examination of the vulnerable sections of the community that it would put at risk.
As I think we all know, the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer was being disingenuous when he said in his Budget statement that it was all a matter of trying to save the world by cutting carbon dioxide emissions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Moray pointed out, an area in the north of Scotland that is the greenest in the country in terms of electricity generation will be the hardest hit by the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel. In the Hydro area, some 0.28 kg of kwH of carbon emissions are generated. The average for the United Kingdom is 0.83—three times as much. The greenest area will be hardest hit and will suffer most. It is in this area that the Scottish paradox of fuel poverty amid energy plenty is at its worst.
It is possible to sit shivering at home in the north-east of Scotland, while looking out to sea and observing cheap gas supplies being piped round the coast without benefiting those experiencing fuel poverty. In rural areas in the north, people cannot even obtain a gas supply to gain access to a cheaper form of heating, because British Gas has ordered the Scottish area to increase connection charges by adjusting the previous formula. The Government are on a

collision course with the Scottish people: perhaps that is why, according to tonight's latest survey, their support in Scotland stands at 14 per cent. For the benefit of numerate Tories from English constituencies, let me say that that is one-four per cent.

Mr. Graham: The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) suggested that the amount involved was only the cost of a pint of beer. How insulting that is to elderly people in Scotland. Do Conservative Members think that such people can go out every night and pay £2 for a pint of beer? The hon. Gentleman clearly has not a clue about the price of a bottle of Calorgas, which is £11.75. Let me tell him, if he does not know, that a hundredweight of coal costs between £5.75 and £6.75.

Mr. Salmond: As ever, the hon. Gentleman has made his point very well and requires only an endorsement from me.
I spent a happy few years on the Energy Select. Committee, which I considered one of the most successful Back-Bench Select Committees. A measure of its success was the Government's anxiety to abolish it: that must say something for the reports it produced. Two examples brought home to me the shameful position in regard to energy use and energy efficiency in the United Kingdom. The first came from Andrew Warren of the Association for the Conservation of Energy, who said in evidence that, without any question, on the basis of a range of statistics and examinations, the standards of thermal insulation in Scandinavia were higher in the 1930s than they are in the United Kingdom in the 1990s, 60 years later.
We need look no further for the explanation of another frightening statistic, mentioned earlier. In Scandinavia—which has a much colder climate than parts of the United Kingdom—the percentage rise in deaths in the more vulnerable sections of the community is much less during the coldest winter months. What have the Government proposed? What is the Minister so proud of? In his opening speech he listed a whole range of measures. He said that the Government will engage in the local authorities investment programme, but that has been severely cut across the range of initiatives that local authorities are prepared to make. He mentioned the Green House initiative, but that budget is to be cut in the next financial year to a mere £5 million. Then he mentioned the Energy Saving Trust—which is chaired by the former golden boy, John Moore—but its budget is only £5 million. The much-vaunted home energy efficiency scheme has a total budget of £35 million.
Those measures and budgets are paltry when compared with the billions of pounds of profits generated by the energy industry. The Government should introduce two measures to help them finance a significant programme of energy conservation. First—for this programme and a range of others—they should arrange the transfer of local authority housing capital debt from local authorities to central Government, which would release funds over a period and enable the local authorities to put their housing stock in proper order.
Secondly, we need tougher regulation of the massive energy utilities. At the moment those utilities have an incentive to sell energy to inadequately insulated homes. Energy utilities are not allowed to sell appliances which are inefficient and dangerous, so why should the same utilities be allowed to sell energy to homes which are energy inefficient and dangerous to the occupants? As a strict


condition of their licence, the energy utilities should be required to provide an input of investment into the proper insulation of the homes to which they sell their energy.
The semblance of unity that the Government have managed so far on the issue of VAT on domestic fuel is a facade. They have heard enough muted sounds from the Tory Back Benches this evening to know the key concerns that many Tory Members have. Even within the Government there is only a facade of unity, a barely held together position on the question of VAT on domestic fuel.
Not everyone in the House buys a weekly copy of the Turriff Advertiser, so for the edification of those who have not read it, I will read a section from the issue of 8 October this year. Under the headline "MP Sproat in Turriff' it reads:
Arts minister lain Sproat expressed concern over government proposals to put VAT on to heating bills, while in Turriff at the weekend.
Speaking at Banff and Buchan Conservatives West branch's cheese and wine, the former Aberdeen South MP was applauded when he said he hoped the Chancellor would not tax domestic fuel.
'It is unfair to put this added burden on the elderly and retired,' he added.
That was said by a Minister in Turriff earlier this month.
I have written to the Prime Minister welcoming the freedom of speech that Ministers are allowed and I am looking forward to the free vote that will be allowed when the issue of VAT on domestic fuel comes to the crunch.
The Minister was dissembling in Turriff because he understands the tidal wave of anger that has been generated by the VAT on domestic fuel issue. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) was right to say that it is a greater issue than the poll tax was in 1989 and 1990. If the Government do not change course on this issue they will be swept aside by that tidal wave of anger. Those on the Treasury Bench may threaten a long cold winter for the elderly and vulnerable in Scotland and elsewhere, but I can promise the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the heartless Secretary of State for Scotland a long hot political winter unless they change course on this particular issue.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt): It gives me great pleasure to respond to the debate and to support the amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People.
I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) who gave a typically understated performance. He raised a number of matters which had been mentioned by other hon. Members and I shall comment on them. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues spoke about inhumanity, and such comments are rather galling to me and my colleagues on the Conservative Benches. We are sick and tired of that sort of stuff.
Over the years we have spent substantial amounts of money on social security and on health. In fact, we spend more on those services than has ever been spent. It is rather unbecoming of the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to rail constantly on the same sort of lines with such emotional stuff.
All the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan can do is to greet every problem with other people's money, which

would fall through his fingers like water. The hon. Gentleman's colleague, the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), yet again bumped up the cost of the cold weather credit scheme to £645 million, which is larger than even we had anticipated. We are all rather tired of the speeches that are given on this subject by the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. I shall comment in detail on the hon. Gentleman's proposals later.
Obviously, I listened with great interest to all the points that were made in the debate. I am afraid that I heard nothing, however, that would convince me that a cold climate allowance would improve conditions for vulnerable people in cold weather. Our current methods of providing help are far better. They deal with the real problems and focus the money on those who need it most. Income support provides for normal heating needs throughout the year and it is supplemented by cold weather payments when there is a sustained period of cold weather in a particular area.
The home energy efficiency scheme addresses the problems of fuel efficiency in homes and the Government combine their effort with other agencies to spread to vulnerable people advice on how to cope with cold weather. The current package of help is well designed and focused.
The hon. Member for Moray, who opened the debate, spoke with her usual passion and concern on this issue. In common with other colleagues, however, I am not convinced that her scheme would do the job that she intends. As we all appreciate, and as was said in the debate, the cost of heating is affected by many factors other than climate, including the size of the home, the type of heating, the standard of insulation and the like. As my right hon. Friend the Minister said, I do not believe that a cold climate heating allowance would be properly targeted. It would introduce new inequities into the scheme. In common with previous Governments, we believe that it would not be right to deviate from the principle of national benefits levels, but that would be the effect of a cold climate allowance.
I must also take issue with the hon. Member for Moray, as other colleagues have done, on the problem of temperature variations between respective parts of the United Kingdom. Matters are not always as clear as they sometimes appear. The mean temperature variation between parts of the United Kingdom does not tend to be that great. Such variation is as much due to higher temperatures experienced during the year in the southern parts of the United Kingdom as opposed to necessarily much lower temperatures in Scotland in the colder months.
I have one example to cite in answer to the argument of the hon. Member for Moray. I studied the average mean temperatures between 1961 and 1990 for the four coldest months of the year—November, December, January and February—and I found out that the temperatures were lower in the English region that spread from Northumberland to Lincolnshire than they were in a Scottish region which included Orkney, Shetland, the northern areas, Ross, Cromarty and Inverness. Under the hon. Lady's proposed system, however, the Scottish area would have received higher payments of the cold climate allowance. I suggest that those figures reveal that it would not be a well-targeted scheme. It would not do the job that the hon. Lady intends.

Mrs. Ewing: I am listening to the Minister with great interest because it is obvious that he does not understand that it is colder in the north of Scotland in general than it is elsewhere. Is he challenging figures that have been supplied by the Meteorological Office, the Social Security Advisory Committee and a variety of organisations that are concerned for the welfare of the elderly and the handicapped? Does he disbelieve their statistics? Is he cooking up his own figures to suit his argument?

Mr. Burt: The hon. Lady should think twice about querying the figures that were given to me by the Meteorological Office. I have cited the mean average temperatures between 1961 and 1990 to illustrate my point that it is not easy to make generalisations, asunder the cold climate allowance scheme, because temperatures vary in different parts of the country. I am afraid that, in some cases, those variations would not do the job that the hon. Lady intends. I am sorry; I shall reiterate the point that in the four coldest months, in two of the areas that the hon. Lady chose, the area in England, to which she would give less money, was colder than the area in Scotland, to which she would give more money. If she would like to query the figures, I would gladly let her have them.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan raised the issue of how much is spent on fuel. He quoted the 1992 figures from the family expenditure survey. I have the 1993–94 figures before me. The average expenditure on fuel and power for those who claim benefit in Scotland in pounds per week is around £10.60. In Yorkshire and on Humberside it is £11, in the north-west and in the east midlands it is £10.80. Those figures suggest that to claim that fuel and power expenditure in Scotland is so far above that in other parts of the country is simply wrong.

Mr. Salmond: If the hon. Gentleman had listened, he would have heard that I quoted the key figures from the expenditure survey—those as a proportion of income. On that basis, they are correct, and I take it that the hon. Gentleman does not disagree. He does not seem to appreciate the central point that has been made throughout the debate, that absolute figures, whether they apply to the poor or to people in colder regions, can of course be lower or marginally higher because people cannot afford to heat their homes. The limitation of those figures is that people switch off their fires because they are frightened of having a fuel debt.

Mr. Burt: Let us not change the argument; I shall deal with the cost of fuel in a moment. I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that when one considers average expenditure as a percentage of net income for the years 1992 to 1994, in Scotland it is 5.1 per cent., compared with 5.4 per cent. in the north, in Yorkshire and Humberside and in Wales. The Scots do not necessarily come out on top.
I enjoyed, as always, the speech of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish), who made his points in a clear and straightforward manner which I respect. Fuel poverty is a matter of concern to us all, and trying to come to grips with how the poorest manage their budgets remains a serious issue. I went to Ireland about three weeks ago and looked at some poverty projects in Northern Ireland and in southern Ireland where there is tremendous emphasis at local level on basic budgetary work. We do not do that nearly as well in the United Kingdom and there are lessons to be learned. For the poorest, budgeting for fuel can be extremely difficult and budget control is essential.
The incidence of winter deaths is a sensitive issue and should be handled sensitively by the House, as the hon. Member for Fife, Central did. He was right: a variety of factors cause deaths during winter. The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Government were interested in doing anything about it. I am glad to tell him that the Department of Health has commissioned the Medical Research Council to undertake research into excess winter mortality and we await the results of the study into that complex issue, which should be handled in a complex manner.
I shall refer later to points made about VAT on fuel, but I would find the concern about fuel costs easier to take from the Labour party if it had not been in office when electricity prices rose by 2 per cent. every six weeks and there was nothing like the comprehensive scheme that we offer to look after people in such situations.
I am grateful for the information from my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, who raised the issue of housing in Scotland and said that that was a problem that any Government would wish to address. It is a problem that we are addressing.
Local authorities have been allocated £393 million for their own stock and £120 million for improvement and repair grants in the private sector. It is for them to allocate the money in the manner we suggest in order to tackle the most difficult conditions highlighted by the Scottish house: conditions survey. In addition, Scottish Homes, with substantial funding, already has about 40 strategic agreements with local authorities to meet housing needs. We accept what the hon. Member for Fife, Central said: housing problems cannot be solved overnight, but the Government are strongly committed to doing everything that they can.

Dr. Godman: The Minister mentioned a research project whose findings will, of course, be of considerable interest to us all. What institution is carrying out the research, what funding does the institution receive and when are the findings likely to be published?

Mr. Burt: The information from the Department of Health states that the research is being carried out by the Medicial Research Coouncil. I do not have information about funding or dates, but I shall ensure that it is sent to the hon. Gentleman.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) made an important contribution to the debate, in which he rightly took the hon. Member for Moray to task over what she said about the scheme. It is clear that Braemar primary school provides an extremely important service for the local community. I was interested in what he said about the problems in his area. I can tell him that the scheme is reviewed regularly, but the issue affecting his constituents has been noted and I shall ensure that it is examined.
The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) spoke about shivers down the spine. He has them because of the Boundary Commission proposals—we have Carlisle marked out as a Tory gain at the next election, so I know that he feels the chill wind pretty keenly. The hon. Gentleman expressed concern about the cold weather payment scheme and moaned about its boundaries and fairness. We all accept that trying to ensure that the 60 stations cover the regions properly will involve an element of selection. However, the hon. Gentleman did not spend


much time telling us about his party's cold weather payment scheme, and the reason is that it does not have one.

Mr. Martlew: I shall probably not be facing the Minister across the Dispatch Box after the next election because he will not be here. Why are there only 60 stations? Could the number not be increased?

Mr. Burt: With respect, that is mere nit-picking. One could argue for more stations, but the point is that we have a scheme that uses the stations to trigger cold weather payments, in a manner that the Labour Government could not have contemplated or afforded. The scheme is clearly—

Mr. Graham: rose—

Mr. Burt: I apologise for not giving way to the hon. Gentleman, but I have only a few minutes left.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton made two important points in his extremely helpful contribution. As any oil analyst of worth should, he correctly analysed the defects in the cold weather allowance mentioned by the hon. Member for Moray. He also pointed out that there has been a reduction in real terms in the cost of domestic fuel—it has been reduced by 17.5 per cent. in real terms over the past few years, which is a considerable contrast to the Labour party's record when it controlled fuel costs.
The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) raised the Liberal head above the parapet. We regard comments by the Liberals on VAT and fuel with considerable scepticism. It is only fair that I remind the House of the words of the Liberal policy paper entitled "Costing the Earth", which was published in August 1991.
It mentioned as a first priority
the imposition of a tax on energy".
It stated:
The UK is unusual amongst EC members in not applying even standard rates of VAT on to domestic fuels … If it proved completely impossible to persuade our international partners to adopt energy taxes, we would nevertheless press forward … by ending the anomalous zero rate of VAT on fuel".
Is it any wonder that so few of the hon. Lady's colleagues were prepared to grace the Benches tonight, because of their shame over that?
The comprehensive scheme offered by Her Majesty's Government in relation to cold weather payments is simple, fair, fast, responsive, sensitive and improved, and it is generous compared to any scheme offered by previous Governments. I commend it and the amendment to the House.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 33, Noes 119.

Division No. 375]
[9.59 pm


AYES


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cryer, Bob


Barnes, Harry
Davidson, Ian


Bayley, Hugh
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Foster, Don (Bath)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Graham, Thomas


Canavan, Dennis
Gunnell, John


Chisholm, Malcolm
Johnston, Sir Russell


Connarty, Michael
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)





Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Rendel, David


Kirkwood, Archy
Salmond, Alex


Macdonald, Calum
Skinner, Dennis


Maclennan, Robert
Tyler, Paul


McWilliam, John
Watson, Mike


Maddock, Mrs Diana



Mahon, Alice
Tellers for the Ayes:


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Mr. Andrew Welsh and


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Ms Liz Lynne.


Paisley, Rev Ian



NOES


Alexander, Richard
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Amess, David
Hunter, Andrew


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Jenkin, Bernard


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Ashby, David
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Kilfedder, Sir James


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Bates, Michael
Knapman, Roger


Beresford, Sir Paul
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Booth, Hartley
Legg, Barry


Boswell, Tim
Lidington, David


Bowis, John
Lightbown, David


Brandreth, Gyles
MacKay, Andrew


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Malone, Gerald


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Merchant, Piers


Burt, Alistair
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Carrington, Matthew
Nicholls, Patrick


Carttiss, Michael
Ottaway, Richard


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Porter, David (Waveney)


Chapman, Sydney
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Clappison, James
Rathbone, Tim


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Richards, Rod


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Robathan, Andrew


Colvin, Michael
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Congdon, David
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Conway, Derek
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Cran, James
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Sims, Roger


Devlin, Tim
Speed, Sir Keith


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Spencer, Sir Derek


Dover, Den
Spink, Dr Robert


Duncan, Alan
Steen, Anthony


Elletson, Harold
Stephen, Michael


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Stern, Michael


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Streeter, Gary


Fabricant, Michael
Sweeney, Walter


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Sykes, John


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Forman, Nigel
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Thomason, Roy


French, Douglas
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Gallie, Phil
Trend, Michael


Gardiner, Sir George
Twinn, Dr Ian


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Viggers, Peter


Gorst, John
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Waller, Gary


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Watts, John


Hague, William
Whittingdale, John


Hampson, Dr Keith
Widdecombe, Ann


Hannam, Sir John
Willetts, David


Harris, David
Wood, Timothy


Hawksley, Warren



Hayes, Jerry
Tellers for the Noes:


Heald, Oliver
Mr. Robert G. Hughes and


Hendry, Charles
Mr. James Arbuthnot.


Horam, John

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House commends Her Majesty's Government on its range of policies designed to protect the most vulnerable from the effects of cold weather and to stimulate energy conservation measures in the United Kingdom; and in particular welcomes the improvements in the Cold Weather Payments Scheme, the increased resources devoted to improving insulation for homes, and the extra help amounting to more than £1 billion given to poorer pensioners.

Statutory Instruments, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

COMPANIES

That the draft Disclosure of Interests in Shares (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1993, which were laid before this House on 18th October, be approved.

VALUE ADDED TAX

That the Value Added Tax (Payments on Account) Order 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 2001), a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th August, be approved.—[Mr. Conway.]
Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees).

PACKAGING AND PACKAGING WASTE

That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 8426/92 and 8682/93, on packaging and packaging waste; and supports the Government's view that a harmonising measure is required in this area, and that the amended proposal for a Council Directive provides a good basis for negotiation, but that elements of it will need further amendment if it is to be acceptable.—[Mr. Conway.]

Question agreed to.

Low Pay (Lancashire)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Conway.]

Mr. Peter L. Pike: I am grateful, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to raise the matter of low pay in Lancashire. I also raised the matter in the House last Tuesday when, in my view, I received an unsatisfactory answer from the Minister of State, Department of Employment.
I had asked the Minister in a written question whether he had had any discussions with jobcentres in Lancashire with regard to the subject of low pay. Due to the summer recess, that question had been on the Order Paper longer than the normal period of 10 working days. However, the Minister stated that he had had no discussions on the subject. In response to my supplementary question, he, gave me what, in my view, was an insulting reply by referring to something that had been advertised in Victoria street in London. His reply had little or no relevance to the situation in Lancashire or to my constituency.
I feel that the issue is of such importance that I immediately sought to raise it on the Adjournment. I am grateful for the opportunity of having a different ministerial response to the case.
Low pay is a scandal affecting the whole of Lancashire. The incidence of low pay in Lancashire is far higher than it is in the country as a whole; indeed, the whole of the north-west is in a similar position. Low pay is just one example of the way in which the Government have eroded working conditions since 1979. They have eroded protection for workers, and they have introduced policies which I find totally unacceptable. The Government's taxation policy is one example. They have moved from direct taxation to indirect taxation, which penalises in particular people on low pay. Those on low pay must use a high percentage of their income—indeed all of their income—because otherwise they cannot survive.
The Government's policies on privatisation and compulsory competitive tendering lead to job losses and cuts in pay and working conditions. There is not one bus worker in Lancashire who, as a result of the Transport Act 1985, now enjoys the same working conditions as he did prior to the Act.
I have not simply raised the issue recently; I have raised it continuously. I have been fortunate enough in the past 12 months or so to be able to raise the issue of low pay in Lancashire on three separate occasions with the Prime Minister. Even when I raised the matter with him, I received an unsatisfactory reply to the points that I made. The issue is extremely important and I hope that the Minister will respond to my points.
Earlier this year, in early-day motion 1442, I drew attention to a programme shown on Channel 4 on 15 February produced by Hard Cash Productions, Cutting Edge. In the programme the journalist Sima Ray drew attention to the scandal of low pay in Burnley, Pendle, Blackburn and Preston. It gave specific examples of some appalling instances of low pay.
The Lancashire 1993 economic situation report said:
The deterioration of average earnings in Lancashire is reflected by figures produced by the Low Pay Unit in Greater Manchester, based upon unpublished data from the 1992 New


Earnings Survey, which revealed that more than half of Lancashire employees, (51.8 per cent …), earn below the low pay threshold.
For its purpose, the low pay threshold was £197.27 per week.
When I refer to low pay, I do not mean pay of £197.27, which is £5.19 an hour; I mean pay of £3 an hour or less. It is a scandal and a disgrace. The Low Pay Unit showed that in Lancashire 11.4 per cent. of the jobs on offer in five jobcentres in September 1992 were at £2.60 an hour or less and 85.5 per cent. were at £3.50 an hour or less. Those jobcentres were Blackpool south, Blackpool central, Preston, Blackburn and Burnley—a fair selection of jobcentres.
In Blackpool central and Blackpool south, a high percentage of the jobs offered wages of just over £3 an hour because they were protected by the wages councils. But now the wages councils have been abolished. Already a larger number of jobs in Blackpool are being offered at less than £3 an hour—jobs in the hotel and catering trade, which were some of the last to be protected by the wages councils.
When we consider the effect of abolishing the wages councils, we must bear it in mind that many of the people who were protected were women. The Trades Union Congress said:
By abolishing Wages Councils on August 30, the Government has removed one of the last remaining forms of protection against wage-cutting and contravention of the equal pay principle for these vulnerable workers.
That is an extremely important point. The Government's record is outrageous and is out of step with other countries in Europe.
The Lancashire economic situation report for 1993 said that a high proportion of employees and advertised jobs in Lancashire were at wages below the contribution level for national insurance. Therefore, those people do not qualify for sick pay, unemployment pay or maternity benefit. That will cause them problems with their pension in the years ahead. It is disgraceful.
I regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) cannot be here for the debate tonight. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) also could not be present. They would have wished to speak in the debate, time permitting. My hon. Friends the Members for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson) and for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall) are here to support my argument.
We all have people who come to our advice bureaux about low pay. A young married man with two children came to my advice bureau two years ago, not about his wages but about safety aspects at the factory in which he worked. He did not work in my constituency; he worked in a small footwear factory in the constituency of Pendle which is adjacent to my constituency. He was very concerned about several safety aspects, but he dared not complain. He had been out of work for a long time and he wanted to keep his job. He was terrified of raising the question of safety with his employer because he was afraid that he would lose his job if he did.
As that man was leaving my surgery he suddenly said, "At the top line, my pay is £40 for a 40 hour week." I asked him whether all the workers received that sum and he told me that the foreman received £50 a week. I asked him whether he was a member of a union and whether he

wanted me to do something. He said, "Oh no. I don't want to lose the job. I've been out of work two years and it's better to be working than to be out of work." What a disgraceful and shameful position that is.

Ms Janet Anderson: I must emphasise that problems like that continue. My hon. Friend referred to someone who was paid £1 an hour two years ago. Only two weeks ago, a constituent of mine came to see me in my surgery. Two years on, she had been offered a job at £1 an hour.
As my hon. Friend has said, the problem is widespread across Lancashire and it has now reached scandalous proportions. To illustrate that, let me point out that a recent survey in the Bacup and Rawtenstall jobcentre area carried out by Labour-controlled Rossendale borough council showed that 75 per cent. of the 239 jobs available paid less than £3.50 an hour. That is a scandal which my constituents can no longer tolerate.

Mr. Pike: I thank my hon. Friend for making those points. She has underlined my case. This is a scandal. It is wrong to call these wages low wages. They are poverty wages and disgracefully low wages, and we must focus attention on them.
I want now to concentrate on examples in a document published in September by the Lancashire and Cumbria citizens advice bureau. The Government sometimes believe that the Low Pay Unit and others are politically biased. The last thing that the citizens advice bureau can be accused of is political bias. I will refer to some of the cases and then state briefly what the Government should do.
The document states that a client from a Lancashire bureau had worked three years for a local solicitor for an hourly wage of £3.54. Her employer paid no tax or national insurance for her and refused to give her a written statement of her terms and conditions of employment. She was dismissed for asking for holiday pay.
A client from another bureau in Lancashire worked for his employer for four and a half years, sometimes up to 60 hours a week, and was paid an hourly rate of £1.86. His comment was:
If I could get another job or if another employer existed, I would go there.
In another case, a client said that he worked 77 hours a week at an hourly rate of £1.50. He said:
I had to work seven days a week for three weeks to get my weekend off.
A citizens advice bureau in another part of Lancashire said that a male client working as a hotel cleaner was paid £50 for an 18-hour week which works out at £2.77 an hour. He was told that if he was to receive family credit, his wage would be reduced to take account of that.
There are many examples of such cases. A full-time hairdresser earned £30 a week. That is absolutely outrageous. An 18-year-old client in a fabric company was paid £1 an hour. If he had been covered by a wages council, he would have received £2.72 if he was over 21. Another CAB in Lancashire reported someone working a 39-hour week in a shoe shop for £90.
The document contains page after page of cases like that. The Minister must accept that the problem is not small. We are not talking about people who are working for reasonable levels of pay. We are talking about people who are working for poverty levels. I could produce pages and pages of statistics from citizens advice bureaux, Lancashire


county council, the Low Pay Unit and from Burnley borough council. People cannot impove their houses because they do not have enough money to do it.
The Government have rejected the case for a national minimum wage. It is time that we had a national minimum wage. [Interruption.] The Minister shakes her head. She will say that a national minimum wage will threaten jobs and that the idea is a load of nonsense. Every other country in Europe has a form of pay protection—not necessarily a national minimum wage—for workers.
When the legislation that abolished wages councils was being considered, several companies in my constituency wrote, through me, to the Minister, saying, "We are paying people this amount. It is outrageous that we should have to face competition from people who pay £1 or £1.50 an hour less for what is effectively slave labour." It is time that the Government talked of fair pay and fair working conditions for a fair day's work. It is time that the Government recognised that working people in this country are entitled to fair treatment. They have not had fair treatment from the Conservative Government. If it is not too late, the Government must change track and show that they are prepared to tackle these problems and do something to eliminate low pay as speedily as possible.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Miss Ann Widdecombe): I congratulate the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) on obtaining this debate. It is also right to acknowledge the presence of other hon. Members at this hour—the hon. Members for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson) and for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall) and, until I stood up, when for some unaccountable reason they left, the hon. Members for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) and for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones). I appreciate their interest in this extremely serious subject.
I totally reject the criticisms that the hon. Member for Burnley levelled at my hon. Friend the Minister of State. When my hon. Friend replied to the hon. Gentleman, he pointed out quite reasonably that one of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues had advertised a job at no pay at all but that there was nothing disgraceful about that because the person concerned, as a result of the experience that he gained, went on to gain a full-time job. My hon. Friend the Minister of State was trying to point out that there are various patterns of entry into the labour market.
It makes no sense at all, at a time of recession, to try to eliminate low pay if the result is no pay. Firms which have been struggling to survive might find that they can keep jobs if they are able to keep their wages bills low. It is better for the country, for Lancashire and for the people who are employed as well as for employers if firms can stay in existence and maintain jobs so that they are ready to take the fullest possible advantage for themselves and their employees of the recovery which nobody now doubts is happening.
I was most interested to hear of the hon. Gentleman's investigations of the jobcentres in his constituency. I make an offer to the hon. Gentleman. He will know that, some years ago, I had a connection with Burnley, but it is a long time since I have been back there. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like me to visit his constituency in due course when the diary permits and we could examine some of the pay rates offered in Lancashire.

Mr. Pike: I recall when the Minister was the candidate for the Burnley constituency—I was then the agent—in 1979. I would be more than happy to welcome her to Burnley. Should not jobcentres make it clear what the rate is for every job so that applicants know exactly what remuneration is being offered?

Miss Widdecombe: I certainly share with the hon. Gentleman an ambition that people who go to a jobcentre should get the fullest possible information not simply about the rates of pay but everything connected with a job, which it is reasonable to assume one would get. I have no information at all to the effect that that is not what is happening in our jobcentre in Burnley. However, I listened to the hon. Gentleman and I am prepared to follow up the matter. Perhaps he will allow me to write to him in due course on that specific point. I will not be visiting Lancashire in the next few days or weeks but, in view of his warmish welcome, I will certainly put a visit on my schedule.
Perhaps I could make some general points. Much of the hon. Gentleman's thesis tonight is based on the reports of the Low Pay Unit. Clearly, he is trying to satisfy himself that the situation that the Greater Manchester Low Pay Unit attempted to describe in September 1992 somehow still exists. Indeed, he is sure that it exists because he has found a number of vacancies that offer less than £100, if I did my calculations correctly. He therefore reached the conclusion that low pay is widespread in Lancashire.
By making that extrapolation, the hon. Gentleman is making the same mistake that the Manchester Low Pay Unit made last year—that is, that advertised rates of pay somehow represent actual remuneration in the local labour market. By basing his arguments about the level of pay on the reports of the Low Pay Unit, he does not get the full picture of the current situation. Not only is the specific report more than one year old; as with so many reports produced by low pay units up and down the country, it is based on research restricted to a survey of vacancies displayed only in jobcentres.
The report of the Greater Manchester Low Pay Unit compared the wages on offer to potential recruits with various thresholds—in this case, national insurance contributions at £54 a week and approximate income tax thresholds of £66 per week for single people and £99 per week for married persons. The Low Pay Unit adds to those benchmarks entirely arbitrary weekly rates of £135 and £155 per week and its spurious low pay threshold of £197 per week. The hon. Gentleman appears to have swallowed whole the assumptions, methodology, reports and conclusions of what I consider to be not very scientific analysis.

Mr. Conn Pickthall: With permission, can the Minister estimate what she considers to be a low-pay threshold?

Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman is not asking a sensible question because what is low pay does not mean that that is the income on which a household must live. A lot of the low pay that is identified is the income of young, single people still living at home and deliberately chosen part-time work on the part of second and third wage earners. One of the ironies is that, if we adopt the policy of a national minimum wage as proposed by the hon. Member


for Burnley, because of the amount of low earning among second and third wage earners, we would benefit the richest 30 per cent. of the population, not the poorest 30 per cent.
Naturally, the hon. Gentleman looked to Europe. I notice that Labour Members always look to Europe when they think that it is convenient, and look sharply away when we have statistics that they do not like. The hon. Gentleman pointed to countries which have minimum wages. The country with the closest to what the Labour party is proposing is Spain. Spain has a statutory minimum along the lines that a Labour Government would go. The fact is that Spain has 22 per cent. unemployment.
If the hon. Gentleman surveyed his constituents—I do not think that they have changed much in intelligence since I was up there, which means that they are a sharp bunch —and said, "Come on constituents of Burnley, would you prefer not to have your job or would you prefer that there were some low-paid vacancies in Lancashire?", I think that they would opt for the latter. People up there are quite wise and I commend their wisdom to their Member of Parliament.

Mr. Pike: Although I realise that the Minister has focused her attention on what the Low Pay Unit said, would she be prepared to look at the evidence of cases that go to the citizens advice bureaux? If I send her a copy of that document, will she respond to it?

Miss Widdecombe: Whatever the document the hon. Gentleman sent me, whether from the citizens advice bureaux or anywhere else, I would certainly look at it and respond to it. I should not dare to throw anything that the hon. Gentleman sent to me in the wastepaper basket. I look forward to responding to that communication in due course.
Earnings constituency by constituency are not as thoroughly documented as earnings by region so I shall consider earnings in the north west region, which will interest those in neighbouring constituencies. The 1993 new earnings survey shows that average weekly gross earnings for both men and women in the north west are higher than in any other region except the south east, including London. In the north west, average gross earnings have grown by 4.5 per cent. for men and 5.8 per cent. for women since the 1992 new earnings survey. People in real jobs in the north west of England are not low paid. On average, they are better paid than people in most of the rest of the country.

Ms Janet Anderson: The Minister has implied that "poverty wages", as my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) rightly described them, are generally paid to single people. However, featured in the Darwen Advertiser in my constituency last week was a family man with an MA from Cambridge, who had been offered £1.66 an hour as a packer, which was the only job he could get. The Minister implied that the jobs on offer in the local jobcentres do not necessarily reflect the overall picture in the area. Where do the unemployed go for jobs? They go to the jobcentre. Indeed, the Government force them to go

there. In the jobcentre in my constituency, a third of the jobs on offer pay less than £2.60 an hour and 75 per cent. pay less than £3.50 an hour.

Miss Widdecombe: The unemployed may have to go to the jobcentre but the Government certainly do not restrict them to the jobcentre. A general fallacy prevalent among Opposition Members—not just in this debate but in a number of arguments that they raise—is that somehow all the information on trends and jobs can be extrapolated just from the vacancies that occur in jobcentres. For example, Opposition Members are always asking me how I account for the large number of people chasing one job. But when one asks what each figure is based on, it is simply on jobcentre vacancies, whereas they are but a proportion of the labour market. I commend Opposition Members to study carefully the high turnover in the labour market and the number of vacancies. Just by looking at the number of vacancies that are filled and created every month they will realise that they cannot possibly be restricted to jobcentres alone.
Although I do not dispute the fact that Opposition Members can come up with examples of low pay, I have disputed throughout that, from those, extrapolations can be made suggesting that the problem is widespread, is worse in Lancashire than elsewhere and is not improving. My statistics, which are thoroughly independent and well validated by the earnings survey, clearly show that the position is improving, Lancashire does well compared with the rest of the country, and low pay is not widespread.
Neither the Government nor any previous Government, of whatever party, have defined low pay. Definitions of low pay, such as those used by the Low Pay Unit, the Trades Union Congress or the Council of Europe, are entirely arbitrary and fail to take account of the particular circumstances of individuals or households. For example, if the Council of Europe's so called "decency threshold" —68 per cent. of the national weekly wage, which was £215 in April 1993—had been held constant in real terms, the numbers earning below it would have fallen by more than 3 million since 1979. Therefore, on those figures, the number of people earning below the decency threshold has fallen. There is a clear lesson to be learnt from that: living standards depend upon a range of factors, not just pay alone. Low pay is relative; there will always be some workers who are lower paid than others.
It is utter wishful thinking to suppose that every wage packet represents a family's whole income. The low paid are the young, single people and part-time workers, many of whom are second, third or even fourth earners in their households. Consequently, only 7 per cent. of those in the bottom tenth of the earnings distribution live in the poorest tenth of the population based on household income. Low pay is not synonymous with low income or poverty, however defined. Having no job is the single most important cause of poverty—only some one fifth of the poorest tenth of the population live in households where the head or spouse is a full-time worker.
Those are the important facts. I thank the hon. Member for Burnley for raising the issue, but I believe that he has done so in a misguided way.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Eleven o'clock